so you're a spelling and grammar instructor now? you are ignorant retards that avoid the facts and dont present any yourself

 

• If I wanted to have an intelligent discussion, I sure as hell wouldn't do it in the basement.
• The full extent of everyone's useful information has already been posted and this thread will now degenerate into the equivalent of a pussy slap fight
• You are an asshat.
• See, the thread is going downhill already.
• I like pie.
• My bologna has a first name.

 

How many here have actually studied economics? The present economic problems have very little to do with Bush. Most of what we are experiencing are from the Clinton administration, and just now taking affect. Remember Enron? What about the others? People lost trust in the stock market because it was so simple for corporate officals to do illegal trading, and corrupt quartely reports. Remember USS Cole? What did Clinton do about it? Nothing again! Did we know who it was? Sure did. Did we teach them a lesson? Yep, bomb us, and we won't do shit. Then came 911.

Anyways, changes made today will not impact the economy for 3-4 years. The economy takes time to reflect changes, good or bad.

Bush inherited these problems when he became president, he didn't make them. I think he's done a great job.

Why invest money into booming the economy only? Security is #1 priority. Sure we can spend all efforts building jobs, but what good is that if we are prone to another attack? That's like dumping $40K into your car, and parking it in the worst part of town with the doors unlocked? What good is buying all those mods if you can't keep them?

 

you suck and i hate you:thumbup:

 

but for some reason no one here understands these facts :dunno:

 

That's cause you don't understand the economy. You'll be one of the people who praise the next president because the economy will finally be reflecting the changes that Bush has made, and will continue to make.

 

i said these people i agree 100% with you

 

Oh okay, my bad.

 

Well, first of all, despite accusing us of having never studied Economics, and then stating that it's Clinton's fault, you have neither posted reasons directly portraying your opinions on what was wrong with Clinton's policies, what is correct with Bush's policy, nor anything connecting the Clinton administration with the current economic problems.

If anything, the Enron scandal is more connected to the Bush administration. You can hardly blame Clinton for the greed of some unethical corporate officials.

I've studied a bit of economics. Let's see how I can do:

The extent of Bush's current economic policy revolves around his little series of tax cuts. This throwback to Reaganomics didn't work then and guess what... didn't work this time either. Here's why:

The idea behind an economic boost created by tax cuts comes from a basic theory that states that short term increases or decreases in income such as a tax rebate check, end of year bonus, sales bonus, etc, do not affect a person's mean propensities to save or consume.

What this means is that, in general, a person is much more likely to spend rather than save money recieved from a short term increase in income. Thus, we all recieve our $300 rebate check and everyone immediately goes and spends it, thus infusing the economy with ~$300 each from about ~150,000,000 people.

The assumption involved here is that the general population has confidence in the economy. If economic confidence is not there, the average person's mean propensity to save can be significantly higher than in good economic times. Given the number of business failures (Enron, MCI Worldcom, etc.), the layoffs that were occuring at that time, and an overall lack of good news regarding the economy in general (increased unemployment figures, unstable stock market, etc) somehow I don't think that we can assume that the average American had confidence in their economy.

Since the tax cuts occured while the average American's mean propensity to save was quite high, far less of that money was spent than projected by the Bush administration. (In order for numbers to have followed their projections you'd have needed magical pixie dust, a miracle, and the good ship Lollypop.)

Just with the ~2.5 million layoffs that have occured since the start of the recession you're looking at ~$450,000,000 of Bush's tax cut that was almost certainly saved rather than spent.


So, number one the tax cut didn't work. Number two, the budget deficit caused by the tax cut further reduced both foreign direct investment in the United States and American propensity to consume, as the budget deficit or surplus is one of the factors involved in determining economic confidence.


So overall yeah, I'd say Bush is doing a fabulous job.

 

Ok, I'm sick of this argument that it takes 3-4 years to show how the economy is going to go. Clinton was in office 8 years. 8! The economy was showing changes after his first term using your train of logic. I'm no expert in this, so until someone explains that to me, I wont buy into this right wing "clinton did nothing for the economy" crap.