NationStates Jolt Archive

When the deficit shrinks due to Bush tax cuts.

This is probably the single best thing Bush has done. All the doom and gloom prophets are proved wrong again as the deficit shrinks due to increased tax revenue. But wait, that should be a good thing, right? Not if you're a Democrat, it isn't.

I'm going to borrow from the WSJ Editorial page for a while

At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week's report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed.

John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, seems especially upset that this revenue surge isn't coming from wage income, but rather from investment income--that is, the so-called non-withholding income tax collections, which have skyrocketed by some 30% this year. "These are typically taxes paid on one-time capital gains, bonuses, stock-options income that may not recur," he laments.


Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on . . . dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to "recur," maybe he'll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent.

Maybe I'm difficult to impress, but since under Clinton, there was a BALANCED budget, I'll save my applause for when Bush can do it too. :p

is it still over a trillion? then dont celeabrate yet.

Maybe I'm difficult to impress, but since under Clinton, there was a BALANCED budget, I'll save my applause for when Bush can do it too. :p


is it still over a trillion? then dont celeabrate yet.


Ah yes, the liberal NS world where economic complacency and ignorance reign supreme.

Ah yes, the liberal NS world where economic complacency and ignorance reign supreme.

Care to elaborate? The Left already has enough arrogance for both sides.

Maybe I'm difficult to impress, but since under Clinton, there was a BALANCED budget, I'll save my applause for when Bush can do it too. :p

Here's to hoping. As long as they don't screw up the economy and keep spending low (like by raising taxes), we'll have a balanced budget.

Ah yes, the liberal NS world where economic complacency and ignorance reign supreme.
I think he's referring to National debt.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Actually, many economic experts, both conservative and liberal, have noted that revenues are up this year due to one time adjustments, and that we can't expect this to last. From the LA Times: (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait15jul15,0,4146366.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)
First, the rise in revenues mainly reflects temporary factors. Economic growth is nothing special at this point in a business cycle, and revenue from individual income tax withholdings — that is, regular wages — are actually growing very slowly. As Mark Zandi of economy.com has noted, the primary factor is the red-hot housing market, which is causing capital gains, as well as bonuses for brokers and underwriters, to skyrocket. A second factor is the hot stock market from 2004, which is already cooling. On top of that, a provision in a 2004 tax bill encouraged corporations to bring home overseas profits right away, causing them to pay more in taxes in 2005 but less in subsequent years.

The upshot of all this is that a bunch of short-term factors have come together to cause revenues to shoot up this year. It has nothing to do with President Bush's "pro-growth" tax cuts, unless you think the tax cuts have somehow caused the housing run-up.

But suppose that weren't the case. Suppose the rise in revenues is permanent — anything's possible, after all — and suppose further that Bush's tax cuts caused it all to happen. That still doesn't vindicate the tax cutters.

Basically, for the last three years, revenues have continuously come in well below expectations. One year of over-performance can't possibly make up for all those years of underperformance. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, revenues are still expected to come in $91 billion below where they were projected to be in 2002, even taking into account all the tax cuts enacted since then.

Imagine the Bushies as investment advisors who urge you to buy a stock, promising it will grow 20% a year. Instead the value of the stock drops for several years in a row, until finally it begins rising, but not nearly enough to cover the loss. If these advisors tried to claim they'd been proved right, you probably wouldn't take them seriously.

The only way the federal budget looks good is if you pretend history began last year. Bolten bragged that the deficit is supposed to drop this year to a mere $333 billion. That's not a terribly huge number by normal standards. But given that we're already four years into an economic expansion, it's awful. It's fine to run deficits when the economy runs into trouble. When it's humming along, you should have a balanced budget, or even surpluses.

Bolten predicted the deficit would be down to $162 billion by 2009. But that figure rests on all sorts of implausible assumptions, including that the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost nothing after next year.

But even if he's right, it's pathetic: The Bushies expect that after eight years of economic expansion, we'll still be borrowing, rather than paying off our bills.

At the peak of the last economic expansion, when Bill Clinton was president, we actually eliminated the deficit and began paying off the national debt. If tax cuts really cause revenues to rise, why are we doing so much worse this time around?

Care to elaborate? The Left already has enough arrogance for both sides.
I think the stats in the editorial stand on their own. The treasury is raking in way more money than was predicted because of the Bush tax cuts. That's good. Or should be anyway. The national debt has returned to traditional averages. That's also good. This is in spite of the enormous giveaways that Bush has signed into law. That's very good.

Clinton's 'surplus' only existed on paper because of budgetary tricks that Congress plays on us. He presided over a lower deficit than Bush because of his dumb luck to be President at a time of great innovation, i.e. Mr. Gore's internet being turned into a commercial tool.

Clinton also had the dumb luck to be President when the Congress was divided. He was forced into some fiscally responsible moves by the opposition. He was especially lucky that the Speaker was Newt Gingrich. The Contract really helped the country and made Clinton look far better than he wanted to.

Bush will never see a balanced budget because he has a friendly Congress that is only too anxious to buy more votes with more spending. The only thing the opposition has to say about his spending bills is that they don't spend enough. Bush really needs an opposition that stands for something other than "We Shoulda Won and We Hate Bush".

But the increased investments that are creating these increased revenues mean that people are buying back into the market and financing the companies that are America. The best way to make sure that this keeps happening is to make the tax cuts permanent.

Actually, many economic experts, both conservative and liberal, have noted that revenues are up this year due to one time adjustments, and that we can't expect this to last.

The Clinton surplus was due to the same factor, only that time it was the stock markets (in particular the NASDAQ) that fueled the budget gains. In order for the Clinton-era projected surpluses (that were, ironically enough, used to justify the 2001 tax cuts during the election), the NASDAQ would have to climb to 20,000; even the bubble peak only hit 5048.62, and it's now at 2,156.78.

Say what? Listen, I used to have maybe a hundred grand in U.S. stocks nearly ten years ago, but not now. Now I wouldn't touch your equities with a ten light year pole. Currently I have a single U.S. dollar. I intend to watch it shrink. No disrespect intended, but the U.S. federal debt is freaking crazy! You do understand that to people in other countries the U.S. appears to be doing a Wile E. Coyote act, with its legs spinning in mid air and a huge drop below it? You know that comedians are changing the words to old songs so that if the dollar collapes suddenly, which it might, they can get a few cheap laughs singing:

Living in squalor on the U.S. dollar,
It is plain to see we are a banana republic now!

For your sake and the sake of the world, I hope the U.S. can dig itself out of its rather large, continent sized hole.

Actually, many economic experts, both conservative and liberal, have noted that revenues are up this year due to one time adjustments, and that we can't expect this to last. From the LA Times: (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait15jul15,0,4146366.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)
I don't think anyone expected the tax cuts to generate revenue immediately. The immediate purpose was to reduce the Clinton Recession. There is a substantial amount of new revenue that is obtained from dividends and interest, that's real good news because over half of all Americans own some sort of stock.

Say what? Listen, I used to have maybe a hundred grand in U.S. stocks nearly ten years ago, but not now. Now I wouldn't touch your equities with a ten light year pole. Currently I have a single U.S. dollar. I intend to watch it shrink. No disrespect intended, but the U.S. federal debt is freaking crazy! You do understand that to people in other countries the U.S. appears to be doing a Wile E. Coyote act, with its legs spinning in mid air and a huge drop below it? You know that comedians are changing the words to old songs so that if the dollar collapes suddenly, which it might, they can get a few cheap laughs singing:

Living in squalor on the U.S. dollar,
It is plain to see we are a banana republic now!

For your sake and the sake of the world, I hope the U.S. can dig itself out of its rather large, continent sized hole.
Make fun if you want, but the U.S. stock market is still the place to keep money.

I don't think anyone expected the tax cuts to generate revenue immediately. The immediate purpose was to reduce the Clinton Recession. There is a substantial amount of new revenue that is obtained from dividends and interest, that's real good news because over half of all Americans own some sort of stock.

These one-time benefits happen every year, and will continue to rise as long as the stock market performs decently. If we get a strong uptrend over the next few years, the deficit will shrink even faster.

I'm glad that the revenue isn't coming mostly from wages. It means my income isn't being taxed more in most cases.

Say what? Listen, I used to have maybe a hundred grand in U.S. stocks nearly ten years ago, but not now. Now I wouldn't touch your equities with a ten light year pole. Currently I have a single U.S. dollar. I intend to watch it shrink. No disrespect intended, but the U.S. federal debt is freaking crazy! You do understand that to people in other countries the U.S. appears to be doing a Wile E. Coyote act, with its legs spinning in mid air and a huge drop below it? You know that comedians are changing the words to old songs so that if the dollar collapes suddenly, which it might, they can get a few cheap laughs singing:

Living in squalor on the U.S. dollar,
It is plain to see we are a banana republic now!

For your sake and the sake of the world, I hope the U.S. can dig itself out of its rather large, continent sized hole.
Too bad people here are thinking about themselves, failing to realize America will be using 100% of its resources just to pay of interest to the $7.8 trillion and growing debt. Like you said, we are digging ourselves a gigantic hole the size of Earth and people will be shocked when the government suddenly can't pay for highways and what-not because they're too busy paying off interest to the debt.

These one-time benefits happen every year, and will continue to rise as long as the stock market performs decently. If we get a strong uptrend over the next few years, the deficit will shrink even faster.

I'm glad that the revenue isn't coming mostly from wages. It means my income isn't being taxed more in most cases.
And Bush's successor will be lauded for the miracle -- just like Clinton!

Too bad people here are thinking about themselves, failing to realize America will be using 100% of its resources just to pay of interest to the $7.8 trillion and growing debt. Like you said, we are digging ourselves a gigantic hole the size of Earth and people will be shocked when the government suddenly can't pay for highways and what-not because they're too busy paying off interest to the debt.

Actually the hole we are digging ourselves into financially is the entitlements. It has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts or insufficient tax revenue. It is a government spending crisis, especially the liabilities that politicians have promised to retirees in Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spending as a share of our national output based solely on current promises will surge from about 20% today, to 25% in 2025 and to 34% by 2040.

In order to balance the budget at those spending totals, we would have to double the highest income tax rate to 70%, raise payroll taxes to 30%, and the corporate income tax rate would rise to twice the average of U.S. trading partners. Or if we tried to borrow to finance all this spending, our debt ratings would slip to junk bond status, according to an analysis by Standard and Poor's.

Figures are from today's WSJ.

Say what? Listen, I used to have maybe a hundred grand in U.S. stocks nearly ten years ago, but not now. Now I wouldn't touch your equities with a ten light year pole. Currently I have a single U.S. dollar. I intend to watch it shrink. No disrespect intended, but the U.S. federal debt is freaking crazy! You do understand that to people in other countries the U.S. appears to be doing a Wile E. Coyote act, with its legs spinning in mid air and a huge drop below it? You know that comedians are changing the words to old songs so that if the dollar collapes suddenly, which it might, they can get a few cheap laughs singing:

The dollar is rallying, trading at $1.20 a Euro, 112 Yen, and 1.73 a Pound. Foreign appetite for our investments is booming, and foreign banks are loading up on USD's because our economy is booming compared to the terrible Euro zone economy or anemic Japan.

The debt value is meaningless as long as people are willing to buy US Treasury bonds and our economy grows faster than the deficit, which is now happening.

Our equities are doing quite well, with record inflows and 4-year highs. There is a new bull move approaching as we reach the end of the Fed tightening and (in my opinion) the end of the secular bear market. Interestingly, 10 years ago would be a great time to invest. You'd have made a fortune.

Don't worry about the dollar. It's the Euro that will collapse.

And Bush's successor will be lauded for the miracle -- just like Clinton!

Just like the 90's boom had a lot to do with Reagan's policies and his beating of inflation. Generally, it seems that the Republicans do the actual work 10 years beforehand and the Democrats ride the success...until a recession. Then they complain about it, and then the Republicans have to fix it again.

I don't think anyone expected the tax cuts to generate revenue immediately. The immediate purpose was to reduce the Clinton Recession. There is a substantial amount of new revenue that is obtained from dividends and interest, that's real good news because over half of all Americans own some sort of stock.
Immediately? I'd be satisfied to see some return on the tax cuts that were "necessary" in 2001.

Look--when Bush says the economy is strong, he's not lying. It is strong--for corporations, and Bush loves him some corporations. But it sucks for most everyone else. Don't know if you saw Fahrenheit 9/11, but if you did, there's that clip where Bush is talking at a fundraiser and he says "some call you the elite, I call you my base." That's about the size of it. When it comes to his economic plans, Bush is looking at big business first and only.

Well, I'm not a big business, and I won't ever be one, so Bush's economic plans tend to, to put it bluntly, leave my ass a little raw. I wasn't so raw under Clinton, and I suspect I wouldn't be so raw under another Democratic President either, because even if the Democrats pay little more than lip service to the working class, that's more than the Republicans pay, and I'll take what I can get.

The dollar is rallying, trading at $1.20 a Euro, 112 Yen, and 1.73 a Pound. Foreign appetite for our investments is booming, and foreign banks are loading up on USD's because our economy is booming compared to the terrible Euro zone economy or anemic Japan.

The debt value is meaningless as long as people are willing to buy US Treasury bonds and our economy grows faster than the deficit, which is now happening.

Our equities are doing quite well, with record inflows and 4-year highs. There is a new bull move approaching as we reach the end of the Fed tightening and (in my opinion) the end of the secular bear market. Interestingly, 10 years ago would be a great time to invest. You'd have made a fortune.

Don't worry about the dollar. It's the Euro that will collapse.

Wow, you sound like a financial analyst!

So you're from Mentor...Are they still good at High School football?

Look--when Bush says the economy is strong, he's not lying. It is strong--for corporations, and Bush loves him some corporations. But it sucks for most everyone else. Don't know if you saw Fahrenheit 9/11, but if you did, there's that clip where Bush is talking at a fundraiser and he says "some call you the elite, I call you my base." That's about the size of it. When it comes to his economic plans, Bush is looking at big business first and only.

I'm actually doing quite well. Financial services have roared under Bush, and as long as we've got investors interested in our equities, my job is secure.

I'm actually doing quite well. Financial services have roared under Bush, and as long as we've got investors interested in our equities, my job is secure.
And what will you do if that situation ever changes? You'll be fucked, and good luck to you then.

Wow, you sound like a financial analyst!

So you're from Mentor...Are they still good at High School football?

Just graduated college in 2004. Major in finance. :)

Yeah, they were 7-3 last season. I was able to keep up on it thanks to their site, my dad and the occasional weekend. I'm hoping for another solid year, but with the whole budget mess I don't know.

Immediately? I'd be satisfied to see some return on the tax cuts that were "necessary" in 2001.

Look--when Bush says the economy is strong, he's not lying. It is strong--for corporations, and Bush loves him some corporations. But it sucks for most everyone else. Don't know if you saw Fahrenheit 9/11, but if you did, there's that clip where Bush is talking at a fundraiser and he says "some call you the elite, I call you my base." That's about the size of it. When it comes to his economic plans, Bush is looking at big business first and only.

Well, I'm not a big business, and I won't ever be one, so Bush's economic plans tend to, to put it bluntly, leave my ass a little raw. I wasn't so raw under Clinton, and I suspect I wouldn't be so raw under another Democratic President either, because even if the Democrats pay little more than lip service to the working class, that's more than the Republicans pay, and I'll take what I can get.
Aw gee, this is too easy.
Q: What do big corporations do?
A: They provide jobs.

Q: What do jobs do?
A: They provide most people with income.

Q: How's the unemployment rate?
A: Pretty damn good -- around 5 percent.

Q: So it's important for industry to do well?
A: You bet!

And what will you do if that situation ever changes? You'll be fucked, and good luck to you then.

As long as people have money and are willing to invest it to earn more, I'll have a job. Barring the collapse of the US or China (or India), of course.

What field do you work in?

And what will you do if that situation ever changes? You'll be fucked, and good luck to you then.
Everyone is on the bubble at one time or another. I work in telecom, the last few years were rough, but now it's better. Big corporations and big government want satellite communications again and I'm happy.

Aerospace and automotives go through the same cycles. You just have to adapt. Engineer when the times are good, become a mortgage broker when the interest rates drop through the floor.

Aw gee, this is too easy.
Q: What do big corporations do?
A: They provide jobs.

Q: What do jobs do?
A: They provide most people with income.

Q: How's the unemployment rate?
A: Pretty damn good -- around 5 percent.

Q: So it's important for industry to do well?
A: You bet!Corporations provide some jobs, but small businesses provide the lion's share, and they supply the largest amount of income to citizens. Corporations also favor shareholders over wageearners for the most part, thus favoring the investor class over the working class. What benefits corporations benefits investors far more than it benefits workers. And while the employment rate is around five percent, that's an artificially low number--it doesn't take into account the long-term unemployed or the underemployed. Job growth has been stagnant at best for the last five years, and real wages have also been stagnant. Like I said, this economy is good for corporations, and by extension, investors, but everyone else is getting hosed.

As long as people have money and are willing to invest it to earn more, I'll have a job. Barring the collapse of the US or China (or India), of course.

What field do you work in?
Education--I'm a college instructor and a writer. My job is reasonably secure, but it could be cut in the event of an economic failure. That doesn't worry me so much, as I've scratched out a living in several different ways in the past. I'll never get rich, but I do okay.

Everyone is on the bubble at one time or another. I work in telecom, the last few years were rough, but now it's better. Big corporations and big government want satellite communications again and I'm happy.

For which company?

You're in good shape now, however. The majority of companies are now profitable, not like they were during the late 90's. Nothing like considering going in to IT in 2000 only to see the bubble burst. I got lucky and stayed in college during the recession.

Corporations provide some jobs, but small businesses provide the lion's share, and they supply the largest amount of income to citizens. Corporations also favor shareholders over wageearners for the most part, thus favoring the investor class over the working class. What benefits corporations benefits investors far more than it benefits workers. And while the employment rate is around five percent, that's an artificially low number--it doesn't take into account the long-term unemployed or the underemployed. Job growth has been stagnant at best for the last five years, and real wages have also been stagnant. Like I said, this economy is good for corporations, and by extension, investors, but everyone else is getting hosed.
And as I said before half the population in America has an investment in the markets. So they certainly benefit by corporate success.

Corporations are not monolithic entities. They need to buy paper and pens and machine parts and so on. Wal-mart gets goods from small suppliers, so does Lockheed-Martin, and so does General Electric. So again, good times for corporations are good times for all.

The Speaker of the House reports:
"The U.S. economy has created over 3.7 million jobs since May 2003. The United States has seen steady job gains for each of the last 25 months and more Americans are working than ever before. The Labor Department revised up job growth in April and May to 292,000 and 104,000, –respectively, boosting the two-month count by 44,000 payroll jobs."
That's way far from stagnant. And probably way low, too. Most jobs added are the non-payroll type jobs that you are so proud of. Those aren't counted in the official statistics.

Education--I'm a college instructor and a writer. My job is reasonably secure, but it could be cut in the event of an economic failure. That doesn't worry me so much, as I've scratched out a living in several different ways in the past. I'll never get rich, but I do okay.

I could see why you did better under Clinton, then. Those were great times for educators.

What do you instruct? That will probably determine how your job security will be in the event of another recession.

For which company?

You're in good shape now, however. The majority of companies are now profitable, not like they were during the late 90's. Nothing like considering going in to IT in 2000 only to see the bubble burst. I got lucky and stayed in college during the recession.
I don't know if that's appropriate to broadcast. But it's not Broadcom. They really did suffer badly. Several of their engineers did become mortgage brokers after they were laid off.

Education--I'm a college instructor and a writer. My job is reasonably secure, but it could be cut in the event of an economic failure. That doesn't worry me so much, as I've scratched out a living in several different ways in the past. I'll never get rich, but I do okay.
Good for you for sticking with it. I was an adjunct prof at Georgia Tech for a year before I realized teaching was not for me. I went to work commercially and it's so much better. Kind of like being paid to play with electronic toys.

The Speaker of the House reports:
"The U.S. economy has created over 3.7 million jobs since May 2003. The United States has seen steady job gains for each of the last 25 months and more Americans are working than ever before. The Labor Department revised up job growth in April and May to 292,000 and 104,000, –respectively, boosting the two-month count by 44,000 payroll jobs."
That's way far from stagnant. And probably way low, too. Most jobs added are the non-payroll type jobs that you are so proud of. Those aren't counted in the official statistics.

Unemployment is at 5%. That means we are starting to draw down to the limits of high-quality employment; what that means is salaries will become more competitive as the pool of surplus skilled workers decreases. (Of course, this also causes inflation).

Capacity utilization is at 80%, and manufacturing boomed in June beyond expectiations on all fronts. That capacity number is important because it will lead to expansion of facilities and employment. We'll see a decisive manufacturing turnaround later this year. That being said, energy prices will be a wildcard.

Maybe I'm difficult to impress, but since under Clinton, there was a BALANCED budget, I'll save my applause for when Bush can do it too. :p

Only because the Republican Congress forced it. The current situation is proof that Regeanomics works.

I don't know if that's appropriate to broadcast. But it's not Broadcom. They really did suffer badly. Several of their engineers did become mortgage brokers after they were laid off.

Well, there is a lot of hope in regard to wireless communications, which have grown extremely rapidly over the past few years. Telecom will be helped by the broadband boom and the tightening of fiber-optic capacity for it.(that glut is mostly useless for modern technology, so lighting it is useless anyway)
Things should be better now that the companies are actually becoming profitable.

Semiconductors in general are doing very well (the SOXX hit new highs with a major breakout this week) especially with the huge AMD beat.

Just like the 90's boom had a lot to do with Reagan's policies and his beating of inflation. Generally, it seems that the Republicans do the actual work 10 years beforehand and the Democrats ride the success...until a recession. Then they complain about it, and then the Republicans have to fix it again.
lol what the hell? It's exactly the other way around! Reagan's trickle down policies worked for a little while, then he left Bush I with the hangover, which he increased further, then Clinton came and turned the deficit into a record surplus, and now we have Bush II the spendthrift blowing it all away. That's why Republicans can accuse Democrats of "taxing and spending," cuz the Republicans spend without taxing and the Democrats are the ones responsible enough to fix what they did, but the only way to do that is through taxes!

http://readythinkvote.com/vote_deficit.html

If that's too partisan for you, here's the data straight from the CBO:
Deficit (-) or
Surplus (Billions of Dollars)
1988 -155
1989 -153

1990 -221
1991 -269
1992 -290
1993 -255
1994 -203
1995 -164
1996 -107
1997 -22
1998 69
1999 126

2000 236
2001 128
2002 -158
2003 -378
2004 -412

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table11

Ah yes, the liberal NS world where economic complacency and ignorance reign supreme.
Yeah, it looks like Bush is doing a great job, much like his father and Reagan.

http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif

Maybe I'm difficult to impress, but since under Clinton, there was a BALANCED budget, I'll save my applause for when Bush can do it too. :p

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is right up there with the New York Post for objective political news. The difference between the two is rather like the difference between Playboy and Hustler. One pretends to be sophisticated, classy, and erudite, the other comes right out and says "we know what you want you filthy beast, so here it is."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is right up there with the New York Post for objective political news. The difference between the two is rather like the difference between Playboy and Hustler. One pretends to be sophisticated, classy, and erudite, the other comes right out and says "we know what you want you filthy beast, so here it is."
Nice analogy. :D

Only because the Republican Congress forced it. The current situation is proof that Regeanomics works.

Then why did everything turn to shit when you had a Republican Congress and a Republican President?

Because the whole "because Congress reigned Clinton in" argument is bullshit. We have a Republican Congress now. Why have they upped the nations credit limit so many times since Bush came into office?

Because Republican's don't know how to handle money. At least not when it belongs to other people.

There are of course Republican's to whom the above is too kind. There are "starve the beast" Republican's who want to limit government spending, not to save government money for important things, but because they actively want to aggravate the problems caused by poverty, because they see themselves as being in the position to successfully exploit the poor. After all, if people can't get food stamps then they'll be in no position to argue over another 50 cents an hour.

Then why did everything turn to shit when you had a Republican Congress and a Republican President?

Because we have a war now!

lol what the hell? It's exactly the other way around! Reagan's trickle down policies worked for a little while, then he left Bush I with the hangover, which he increased further, then Clinton came and turned the deficit into a record surplus, and now we have Bush II the spendthrift blowing it all away. That's why Republicans can accuse Democrats of "taxing and spending," cuz the Republicans spend without taxing and the Democrats are the ones responsible enough to fix what they did, but the only way to do that is through taxes!

This is too funny. As I said earlier, ignorance is bliss. Read back a few pages, this argument has already been dispatched back to the partisan corner that it came from.

As I said earlier, ignorance is bliss.
This thread is proof positive. :rolleyes:

Because we have a war now!
You really don't want to go down that road.

We actually have two wars--one with some justification, that we've ignored recently in Afghanistan (and when I say recently, I mean for the last 3 years), and one with no justification, that has cost us over $200 billion, will continue to cost us more in the future, and which has damaged our military immensely.

And yet, in the midst of this war, the Republican Congress and the Republican President cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, thereby dropping federal revenues and increasing both the yearly deficit and the national debt.

When the war you fight is a voluntary one, you don't get to turn around and then use it as an excuse for a problematic economy.

This is too funny. As I said earlier, ignorance is bliss. Read back a few pages, this argument has already been dispatched back to the partisan corner that it came from.
what the hell are you talking about!? Did you even look at the sites I posted? Maybe you should read back a few pages and look at the facts. How has the argument been "dspatched to the partisan corner it came from" when the source is from the friggin government!? Or do you not trust what the Bush Administration says? Ignorance sure is bliss ain't it? :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm difficult to impress, but since under Clinton, there was a BALANCED budget, I'll save my applause for when Bush can do it too. :p

The economy in general was better under Clinton. Balanced budget, nearly full employment, low gas prices, military not involved in wars all over the globe, little fear of terrorism. Yes, we've come a loooong way under W. :rolleyes:

Not bad. Federal Budget going down. Economy is running on all cylendors. the GDP is growing. And all this while we're in a war.

SWEET!!

Gotta love it :)

Not bad. Federal Budget going down. Economy is running on all cylendors. the GDP is growing. And all this while we're in a war.

SWEET!!

Gotta love it :)
Must be nice to live in your fantasy world. Tell me again when you're signing up for active duty in Iraq?

Yeah, that's what I thought. :rolleyes:

Good news is bad news when a forest is cleared to create an amusment park.

Must be nice to live in your fantasy world. Tell me again when you're signing up for active duty in Iraq?

How is it fantasy when its true? Also, it is a rather known fact that wars help a nation's economy. It was World War II that brought us out of a depression after all.

Our GDP is also growing and our umemployment is down to 5.0% so tell me how I'm living in a fantasy land? As for me signing up, I'm ineligible to sign up :( otherwise I would have by now.

How is it fantasy when its true? Also, it is a rather known fact that wars help a nation's economy. It was World War II that brought us out of a depression after all.

Our GDP is also growing and our umemployment is down to 5.0% so tell me how I'm living in a fantasy land? As for me signing up, I'm ineligible to sign up :( otherwise I would have by now.
Of course wars help the economy. You're right, WWII brought us out the depression, but that was mainly because of the hyped up tank production, women went to work instead of staying at home, conservation and rationing of war-related products for the Homefront, as of the current war, the only companies showing profit are government contractors. We don't know how a perpetual war is going to affect the economy and I'd rather have a stable economy than put it in the hands of a war.

Of course wars help the economy. You're right, WWII brought us out the depression, but that was mainly because of the hyped up tank production, women went to work instead of staying at home, conservation and rationing of war-related products for the Homefront, as of the current war, the only companies showing profit are government contractors. We don't know how a perpetual war is going to affect the economy and I'd rather have a stable economy than put it in the hands of a war.

The post World War 2 period saw the lowest unemployment, fastest gains in income, fastest rise of living standards, and some of the best economic growth and stock gains in American history. It makes the 90's look mediocre.

You think the 90's were stable? The only reason it did well was because of the telco/internet bubble that was based on hype, driving up the Naz to 5,000 in two years. That produced the wealth effect that drove consumer spending, and led to increased hiring for tech companies, most of which never had or would make a profit.

The post World War 2 period saw the lowest unemployment, fastest gains in income, fastest rise of living standards, and some of the best economic growth and stock gains in American history. It makes the 90's look mediocre.

You think the 90's were stable? The only reason it did well was because of the telco/internet bubble that was based on hype, driving up the Naz to 5,000 in two years. That produced the wealth effect that drove consumer spending, and led to increased hiring for tech companies, most of which never had or would make a profit.
Too bad I never said anything about the 90's :rolleyes:

lol what the hell? It's exactly the other way around! Reagan's trickle down policies worked for a little while, then he left Bush I with the hangover, which he increased further, then Clinton came and turned the deficit into a record surplus, and now we have Bush II the spendthrift blowing it all away. That's why Republicans can accuse Democrats of "taxing and spending," cuz the Republicans spend without taxing and the Democrats are the ones responsible enough to fix what they did, but the only way to do that is through taxes!

I agree that Bush's spending is too much, and unnecessary (highway bill and Medicare benefit are bullshit pork programs). He never vetoes and I fault him for it.

Reagan had to have deficits to win the Cold War and rebuild the military from the Jimmy Carter disaster.

Too bad I never said anything about the 90's :rolleyes:

Someone had previously mentioned the 90's, so I wanted to explain. I couldn't find the quote, but I included it with a space in case you thought it was in response to your quote. It was a mistake on my part.

Edit: Here was the quote for part 2:

The economy in general was better under Clinton. Balanced budget, nearly full employment, low gas prices, military not involved in wars all over the globe, little fear of terrorism. Yes, we've come a loooong way under W.

I agree that Bush's spending is too much, and unnecessary (highway bill and Medicare benefit are bullshit pork programs). He never vetoes and I fault him for it.

Reagan had to have deficits to win the Cold War and rebuild the military from the Jimmy Carter disaster.
actually, if you look at the deficit/surplus table, Carter had the economy relatively stable with a relatively low deficit. As soon as Reagan took office, the deficit began to explode.

Deficit(-) in Billions
1976 -74
1977 -54
1978 -59
1979 -41

1980 -74
1981 -79
1982 -128
1983 -208
1984 -185
1985 -212
1986 -221
1987 -150
1988 -155

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table11

True, Reagan patched things up at the end, but still left it in worse shape than he got it after Carter. I'm not saying Carter was a great President, he was far from it. Reagan drastically increased defnese spending in order to "win" the Cold War.

Someone had previously mentioned the 90's, so I wanted to explain. I couldn't find the quote, but I included it with a space in case you thought it was in response to your quote. It was a mistake on my part.

Edit: Here was the quote for part 2:
ah, sorry for my assholishness then! :)

actually, if you look at the deficit/surplus table, Carter had the economy relatively stable with a relatively low deficit. As soon as Reagan took office, the deficit began to explode.
True, Reagan patched things up at the end, but still left it in worse shape than he got it after Carter. I'm not saying Carter was a great President, he was far from it. Reagan drastically increased defnese spending in order to "win" the Cold War.

The deficit is meaningless in regard to economic conditions. Just looking at it doesn't tell you anything. The economy was vastly better under Reagan than under Carter on all levels.

ah, sorry for my assholishness then! :)

No problem. I couldn't even tell the difference. :cool:

The deficit is meaningless in regard to economic conditions. Just looking at it doesn't tell you anything. The economy was vastly better under Reagan than under Carter on all levels.
well, I'll just have to take your word for it...seeing as how I wasn't around until Reagan was a lame duck! "Well, I can't recall" Reagan's Presidency!

And yet, in the midst of this war, the Republican Congress and the Republican President cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, thereby dropping federal revenues and increasing both the yearly deficit and the national debt.

When the war you fight is a voluntary one, you don't get to turn around and then use it as an excuse for a problematic economy.

You didn't read the first post did you. The deficit is shrinking. The tax cuts for everyone has stimulated the economy, just like it did under Reagan. More econonic activity means more investment and more jobs which in turn increases revenue.

The fact that we went from a "surplus" to a "deficit" because of the war is not an excuse but the reason.

With a Republican President, a Republican Congress and Greenspan our economy is doing pretty well.

Reagan had to have deficits to win the Cold War and rebuild the military from the Jimmy Carter disaster.

And now Bush is having to rebuild the military from the Bill Clinton - Al Gore disaster. :eek:

And now Bush is having to rebuild the military from the Bill Clinton - Al Gore disaster. :eek:
lol wtf!?

lol wtf!?

Al Gore bragged about how he cut the Federal government. What he did to cut the Federal government was cut the military. After all, the cold war was over, and the Gulf War was over so we didn’t need such a big military. :(

How is it fantasy when its true? Also, it is a rather known fact that wars help a nation's economy. It was World War II that brought us out of a depression after all.

Our GDP is also growing and our umemployment is down to 5.0% so tell me how I'm living in a fantasy land? As for me signing up, I'm ineligible to sign up :( otherwise I would have by now.
Not when you combine a war with extravagant tax cuts, they're not. And I believe we already busted you in another thread about your so-called ineligibility to sign up for the military. But that's okay--we already knew you didn't have what it takes to actually back up your tough talk on the war.

You didn't read the first post did you. The deficit is shrinking. The tax cuts for everyone has stimulated the economy, just like it did under Reagan. More econonic activity means more investment and more jobs which in turn increases revenue.

The fact that we went from a "surplus" to a "deficit" because of the war is not an excuse but the reason.

With a Republican President, a Republican Congress and Greenspan our economy is doing pretty well.I did read it--you obviously didn't read the rebuttal piece I posted. The reason the deficit is shrinking is due to some one-time factors, not to anything sustainable. Supply side works all right--for the rich, for the investor class, and for corporate America. For everyone else, it's a big fat one right in the butt.

Al Gore bragged about how he cut the Federal government. What he did to cut the Federal government was cut the military. After all, the cold war was over, and the Gulf War was over so we didn’t need such a big military. :(

Why did we need such a big military?

Why did we need such a big military?

Bosnia, Kosovo, etc, etc. Now we are trying to play catch up.

You didn't read the first post did you. The deficit is shrinking. The tax cuts for everyone has stimulated the economy, just like it did under Reagan. More econonic activity means more investment and more jobs which in turn increases revenue.

The fact that we went from a "surplus" to a "deficit" because of the war is not an excuse but the reason.

With a Republican President, a Republican Congress and Greenspan our economy is doing pretty well.
Kinda funny that George H. Bush referred to this as "Voodoo Economics"?

I know that it is an old story but it carries a lot of truths.

The return of voodoo economics (http://www.salon.com/news/col/huff/2002/09/05/voodoo/)

According to the White House, the proposals being considered include tax incentives to encourage stock market investment and capital gains tax cuts -- on top, of course, of the massive impending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans already signed into law. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill defined the party line this way earlier this summer: "This is how we create economic prosperity -- not by strangling people with interference and regulation and punishing restrictions on trade and job creation, but by opening the world up."

In other words, meet the new new economy, same as the old new economy. Forget the inconvenient fact that deregulation hasn't worked -- that it's given us an airline industry on the verge of collapse, higher electric and cable bills, a savings and loan disaster, to say nothing of Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, AOL, Xerox, Merrill Lynch, et al. -- the invisible hand is still the magical answer to all our woes.

How did the free-market ideology of the Reagan revolution come to be the political consensus of our times? How did we get suckered by the fairy tale that as long as people kept shopping, the market could keep our prosperity going as far as the eye could see? And that by voting with our credit cards, we could spread the gospel of prosperous democracy to any corner of the earth where American products were made or consumed. Like all fairy tales, it's a nice story. But it's time to acknowledge that this one didn't have a happily-ever-after ending.

Kinda funny that George H. Bush referred to this as "Voodoo Economics"?[/i]

No, George did not. The Democrats refered to it as Voodoo Economics. The point however is it worked and is working now.

No, George did not. The Democrats refered to it as Voodoo Economics. The point however is it worked and is working now.

OK, so I will admit I am wrong; "He headed the U.S. liaison office in Beijing before becoming Director of Central Intelligence. In 1980 Bush became Reagan's running mate despite earlier criticism of Reagan “voodoo economics” and by the 1984 election had won acclaim for his devotion to Reagan's conservative agenda." http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760625.html

It still worked thought.

No, George did not. The Democrats refered to it as Voodoo Economics.
Nice try but wrong answer blaming the Dems on this one.

The point however is it worked and is working now.
It didn't work and it is not working now.

In 2000, the participatory rate was 64.7%, and currently it is 62.7%.

In 2000, the number of people not in the labour force was 68,836,000

In 2005, the number of people not in the labour force was 76,787,000

It should be noted that this relative non growth has occurred when the US has enjoyed record low rates of inflation and interest rates. What will happen to the economy when inflation rates and interest rates rise?

Toss in record levels of personal bankruptcy, and factor in the "true" unemployment rate and the picture looks ugly.

Lets not forget that people are maxing out their credit cards and borrowing against the equity in their house and you get the picture:

http://www.kwaves.com/debt_gdp.gif

It didn't work and it is not working now.

In 2000, the participatory rate was 64.7%, and currently it is 62.7%.

In 2000, the number of people not in the labour force was 68,836,000

In 2005, the number of people not in the labour force was 76,787,000

It should be noted that this relative non growth has occurred when the US has enjoyed record low rates of inflation and interest rates. What will happen to the economy when inflation rates and interest rates rise?

Toss in record levels of personal bankruptcy, and factor in the "true" unemployment rate and the picture looks ugly.



True unemployment doesn't mean anything; even at the peak of Clinton's term it was 6.5%, and averaged around 8 during his presidency. Those people are usually long term unemployed due to their own fault, not economic situation. The AUR doesn't mean much more then how tight the labor supply it; if it moves down then the labor supply is too tight and inflation occurs. That number is the capacity utilization of employment.

We had a recession, 9/11 (1mln jobs from that one), corporate collapses, and worldwide instability. The dot-bomb also cost hundreds of thoudands of jobs because of all of the money lost on overspending on personnel when most of it was based on hype. The money lost was around 9 trillion dollars (from 1.9 times GDP to 1.0) in stock wealth; this created a reverse wealth effect leading to the recession.

We've been in a rising rate environment for some time now, and the economy is performing very well on all fronts, even after the brief slowdown earlier this year (a byproduct of the bubble collapse, even 5 years later).

...This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it...
Whatever dude.
:rolleyes:

Toss in record levels of personal bankruptcy, and factor in the "true" unemployment rate and the picture looks ugly.

Lets not forget that people are maxing out their credit cards and borrowing against the equity in their house and you get the picture:

http://www.kwaves.com/debt_gdp.gif

Well I must be an exception. In the last six years, I have managed to increase my annual salary from $ 36,000 to $ 49,200. In the last three years, I have managed to decrease my credit card debt from over $ 25,000 to less than $ 17,000. I have also managed to increase my savings accounts from about $200 to about $4,000. My 401k has also increased in spite of an $18,000 withdrawal to pay for repairs on my home.

I am working for a company that employs engineers, computer science folks, highly skilled mechanical and electronics technicians, and a number of semi-skilled workers. Over the last three years our company has been expanding and hiring more people in these high paying jobs.

One of the women I work with is leaving in a few weeks because she found better job paying $10,000 a year more. So, please do not preach to me the doom and gloom of the US economy under the present administration.

Oh, and I have not borrowed one dime against the equity in my home.

True unemployment doesn't mean anything;
I guess if 5.0 gives you a fuzzy feel good feeling then I guess it means nothing to you, but it might mean something to those that can't find a decent job?

even at the peak of Clinton's term it was 6.5%, and averaged around 8 during his presidency.
Sorry to disappoint you but that is totally inaccurate.

Those people are usually long term unemployed due to their own fault, not economic situation. The AUR doesn't mean much more then how tight the labor supply it; if it moves down then the labor supply is too tight and inflation occurs. That number is the capacity utilization of employment.
Then how do you explain the lower participatory rate? Oh, thats right, it is their fault?

We had a recession, 9/11 (1mln jobs from that one), corporate collapses, and worldwide instability. The dot-bomb also cost hundreds of thoudands of jobs because of all of the money lost on overspending on personnel when most of it was based on hype.
Hype, much like the current rosey picture?

The money lost was around 9 trillion dollars (from 1.9 times GDP to 1.0) in stock wealth; this created a reverse wealth effect leading to the recession.
Was it the wealthiest people that lost money, or the average joe?

We've been in a rising rate environment for some time now, and the economy is performing very well on all fronts, even after the brief slowdown earlier this year (a byproduct of the bubble collapse, even 5 years later).
The rising rate is minimal at best and will cause some economic hardships for many when they climb dramatically. Also the price of oil is hitting record highs and when that gets factored in, the economy will be affected greatly?

Well I must be an exception. In the last six years, I have managed to increase my annual salary from $ 36,000 to $ 49,200. In the last three years, I have managed to decrease my credit card debt from over $ 25,000 to less than $ 17,000. I have also managed to increase my savings accounts from about $200 to about $4,000. My 401k has also increased in spite of an $18,000 withdrawal to pay for repairs on my home.

I am working for a company that employs engineers, computer science folks, highly skilled mechanical and electronics technicians, and a number of semi-skilled workers. Over the last three years our company has been expanding and hiring more people in these high paying jobs.

One of the women I work with is leaving in a few weeks because she found better job paying $10,000 a year more. So, please do not preach to me the doom and gloom of the US economy under the present administration.

Oh, and I have not borrowed one dime against the equity in my home.
I would suggest that you are an exception, considering the posts that I have read here over the past 1 and 1/2 years.

BTW, I am not " preaching to you the doom and gloom of the US economy under the present administration", I am presenting what I see as a totally different picture, backed by facts and figures, that are available from your government institutions, and credible financial data bases.

Well I must be an exception. In the last six years, I have managed to increase my annual salary from $ 36,000 to $ 49,200. In the last three years, I have managed to decrease my credit card debt from over $ 25,000 to less than $ 17,000. I have also managed to increase my savings accounts from about $200 to about $4,000. My 401k has also increased in spite of an $18,000 withdrawal to pay for repairs on my home.

I am working for a company that employs engineers, computer science folks, highly skilled mechanical and electronics technicians, and a number of semi-skilled workers. Over the last three years our company has been expanding and hiring more people in these high paying jobs.

One of the women I work with is leaving in a few weeks because she found better job paying $10,000 a year more. So, please do not preach to me the doom and gloom of the US economy under the present administration.

Oh, and I have not borrowed one dime against the equity in my home.

Generalizing from a single example (oneself) is dubious logic at best. Plenty of people did just fine during the Great Depression, does that mean the Depression never happened?

I guess if 5.0 gives you a fuzzy feel good feeling then I guess it means nothing to you, but it might mean something to those that can't find a decent job?

5 percent is below the average of the past 40 years. The rates under 5% with Clinton were an anomaly that only occured from 1997-2000, three years.

I found a decent job fairly easily. You have to be in the right field.

Sorry to disappoint you but that is totally inaccurate.

I think I made a mistake, I misinterpreted your statement to mean the augmented unemployment rate, which includes all unemployed (like those who are not actively seeking jobs, etc.) and is much higher than the headline rate (which is more important for the average jobseeker).

Then how do you explain the lower participatory rate? Oh, thats right, it is their fault?

First, the participation rate is only two percent lower than it was at its peak, so it isn't that dramatic a drop and is in fact less severe a decline than the last recession. Secondly, that number peaked in March 2000 at the same time as the dot-coms; thus, a majority of the gains were not even based in reality to begin with, and evaporated with the companies.

Hype, much like the current rosey picture?[/QUOTE]

No, that's where the jobs went. These factors dealt a severe blow to the economy, and so the majority of job losses can be assigned to them.

Was it the wealthiest people that lost money, or the average joe?

50% of American households owned stock in 2000, and tech was very common because it was easy to trade and new and hyped; the stock losses hit the middle class very hard.


The rising rate is minimal at best and will cause some economic hardships for many when they climb dramatically. Also the price of oil is hitting record highs and when that gets factored in, the economy will be affected greatly?

Inflation has slowed to almost nonexistent over the past two months, even with higher oil. Inflation is well contained and will be for the forseeable future.

5 percent is below the average of the past 40 years. The rates under 5% with Clinton were an anomaly that only occured from 1997-2000, three years.
Quite an "anomaly" there? When Clinton took office in Jan. 1993, the unemployment rate was 7.3%, steadily declined to 3.9%, except for minor monthly corrections.

I found a decent job fairly easily. You have to be in the right field.
What about those who can't find a decent job, or were in the "right field", but that field evapourated or declined significantly? GM has just announced that they are going to eliminate 25,000 jobs. What happens to those people?

I think I made a mistake, I misinterpreted your statement to mean the augmented unemployment rate, which includes all unemployed (like those who are not actively seeking jobs, etc.)
I am sorry if I somehow misled you to that conclusion.

and is much higher than the headline rate (which is more important for the average jobseeker).
How is it much "more important for the average jobseeker", if the jobs are in fact not there, thus relegating those people to "discouraged" worker status?

First, the participation rate is only two percent lower than it was at its peak, so it isn't that dramatic a drop
You are talking about over 4 million jobs. That is not dramatic?

and is in fact less severe a decline than the last recession. Secondly, that number peaked in March 2000 at the same time as the dot-coms; thus, a majority of the gains were not even based in reality to begin with, and evaporated with the companies.
There is some validity to your argument, but shouldn't this kind of situation send out severe warning signals for possible future abuses of the system?

No, that's where the jobs went. These factors dealt a severe blow to the economy, and so the majority of job losses can be assigned to them.
What this says to me, is that your economy is still extremely vulnerable depending on a number of circumstances?

50% of American households owned stock in 2000, and tech was very common because it was easy to trade and new and hyped; the stock losses hit the middle class very hard.
That is why, Americans should question the soundness of Bush's policy that would allow people more control over their Social Security investments?

Inflation has slowed to almost nonexistent over the past two months, even with higher oil. Inflation is well contained and will be for the forseeable future.
However, the warning bells are ringing? Here is an interesting excerpt:

Global: From Bubble to Bubble (http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20050624-fri.html)

Not only does the outstanding volume of household sector indebtedness now stand at a record of nearly 90% of GDP, but this ratio has soared by 20 percentage points over the past five years (2000-04) -- equal to the rise that took place over the preceding 15 years (1985-99). Moreover, household sector debt-service burdens are at historic highs when scaled by disposable personal income -- truly astonishing in a climate of rock-bottom interest rates. That means it wouldn’t take much of a back-up in rates to put a real squeeze on the over-extended American consumer.

I think this stuff is a concern, not just for Americans, but those heavily plugged into the global economy?

Not when you combine a war with extravagant tax cuts, they're not. And I believe we already busted you in another thread about your so-called ineligibility to sign up for the military.

I'm under the American Disabilities Act which renders me ineligible for military service. Is that clear enough for you to understand finally? As for war with extravagant tax cuts, guess what? The deficit is going D-O-W-N and we didnt' even raise taxes to do it. Now how the hell do you explain that?

But that's okay--we already knew you didn't have what it takes to actually back up your tough talk on the war.

I would be more than glad to show you that I have what it takes but then, read my above statement.

I'm under the American Disabilities Act which renders me ineligible for military service. Is that clear enough for you to understand finally? As for war with extravagant tax cuts, guess what? The deficit is going D-O-W-N and we didnt' even raise taxes to do it. Now how the hell do you explain that?



I would be more than glad to show you that I have what it takes but then, read my above statement.So it's the ADA this time, huh? Last time it was that your dad was already active duty in Iraq and thus you were ineligible. What'll it be next time, I wonder?

So it's the ADA this time, huh? Last time it was that your dad was already active duty in Iraq and thus you were ineligible. What'll it be next time, I wonder?

I am under the ADA hence why I am ineligible for military service. I already said due to a medical condition I am ineligible. It falls under the ADA.

I am under the ADA hence why I am ineligible for military service. I already said due to a medical condition I am ineligible. It falls under the ADA.
Like you've got any credibility left on this discussion after the last time. Whatever--if it helps you sleep through the night... :rolleyes:

Like you've got any credibility left on this discussion after the last time. Whatever--if it helps you sleep through the night... :rolleyes:

Believe what you will but I already asked the recruiter about it and the recruiter told me that I was ineligible.