My speech for the day (republicans and war hawks, come have a field day)
01-16-2004 | 11:36 AM
#81
Banned
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,058
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, FL
Originally posted by qtiger
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 economic collapse 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.
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 economic collapse 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.
01-16-2004 | 11:53 AM
#82
bboy Wesley West
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,390
Likes: 0
From: six-five-o
werd, im in AP econ and i kinda understand, it makes sense. The tax cuts didnt to nothing but raise the deficit.
I tihnk we should have just left it alone, lassiez-faire. The economy would have gone back to its original state.
I tihnk we should have just left it alone, lassiez-faire. The economy would have gone back to its original state.
01-16-2004 | 11:55 AM
#83
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally posted by sxecrow
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.
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.
sure it is.. the loss of jobs we are seeing and have seen over the past couple years is due to one simple thing... cheap labor elsewhere... there were two things that your precious clinton did while in office that strongly contributed to that. first, the increase in minimum wage, which caused an increase in the jobless rate simply because businesses had to shell out more money for their work force. secondly, NAFTA, which gave these businesses that lost a significant amount of profit with the minimum wage hike a place to do business and make up their lost profit. Now, those "average joe" type of people that the minimum wage hike helped initially are in the unemployment line. the restructuring is jobs going elsewhere for less money.
01-16-2004 | 11:59 AM
#84
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Originally posted by /^Blackmagik^\
we must all face the facts.. the average working class citizen is going away in this country. manufacturing jobs have all but gone out the door. the problem with his is that the average working class citizen makes up a signifigant portion of the work force and usually have a high school diploma or less. at this point in the game it's useless to bicker over tax cuts or hikes. personally i don't believe that is the solution to the unemployment rate and is only a short term solution to boosting the economy. the average working class citizen needs something more to be effective now and a high school education isn't cutting it anymore. that is the problem. the only real way to fix the unemployment rate and in turn boost the economy is for more of the work force to become educated, by whatever means. that also means that those unemployed citizens need to take it upon themselves to see that it happens. the administration isn't there to hold each individual's hand and walk them out to catch the school bus every morning. just my $.02 on the economy.
we must all face the facts.. the average working class citizen is going away in this country. manufacturing jobs have all but gone out the door. the problem with his is that the average working class citizen makes up a signifigant portion of the work force and usually have a high school diploma or less. at this point in the game it's useless to bicker over tax cuts or hikes. personally i don't believe that is the solution to the unemployment rate and is only a short term solution to boosting the economy. the average working class citizen needs something more to be effective now and a high school education isn't cutting it anymore. that is the problem. the only real way to fix the unemployment rate and in turn boost the economy is for more of the work force to become educated, by whatever means. that also means that those unemployed citizens need to take it upon themselves to see that it happens. the administration isn't there to hold each individual's hand and walk them out to catch the school bus every morning. just my $.02 on the economy.
The United States has had the economic advantage on the world since World War II. We had the least damage to our economy, had no rebuilding to do, and we'd built dozens of factories, virtually doubled the work force by opening the way for women to work in heavy labor jobs... the economy was booming.
But we got lazy, and everyone else is catching up. If the United States is to continue to be a major world power, we must be competitive with the rest of the world.
In my opinion, #1 on that list is requiring that students learn at least one foreign language in the public school system, preferably starting at middle school level.
01-16-2004 | 12:10 PM
#85
Banned
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,058
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, FL
Originally posted by /^Blackmagik^\
you must've missed this post earlier in thread by me... so.. i'll :repost: it
we must all face the facts.. the average working class citizen is going away in this country. manufacturing jobs have all but gone out the door. the problem with his is that the average working class citizen makes up a signifigant portion of the work force and usually have a high school diploma or less. at this point in the game it's useless to bicker over tax cuts or hikes. personally i don't believe that is the solution to the unemployment rate and is only a short term solution to boosting the economy. the average working class citizen needs something more to be effective now and a high school education isn't cutting it anymore. that is the problem. the only real way to fix the unemployment rate and in turn boost the economy is for more of the work force to become educated, by whatever means. that also means that those unemployed citizens need to take it upon themselves to see that it happens. the administration isn't there to hold each individual's hand and walk them out to catch the school bus every morning. just my $.02 on the economy.
you must've missed this post earlier in thread by me... so.. i'll :repost: it
we must all face the facts.. the average working class citizen is going away in this country. manufacturing jobs have all but gone out the door. the problem with his is that the average working class citizen makes up a signifigant portion of the work force and usually have a high school diploma or less. at this point in the game it's useless to bicker over tax cuts or hikes. personally i don't believe that is the solution to the unemployment rate and is only a short term solution to boosting the economy. the average working class citizen needs something more to be effective now and a high school education isn't cutting it anymore. that is the problem. the only real way to fix the unemployment rate and in turn boost the economy is for more of the work force to become educated, by whatever means. that also means that those unemployed citizens need to take it upon themselves to see that it happens. the administration isn't there to hold each individual's hand and walk them out to catch the school bus every morning. just my $.02 on the economy.
and you're right - I missed that post.
01-16-2004 | 12:14 PM
#86
bboy Wesley West
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,390
Likes: 0
From: six-five-o
Originally posted by qtiger
I'm in total agreement.
The United States has had the economic advantage on the world since World War II. We had the least damage to our economy, had no rebuilding to do, and we'd built dozens of factories, virtually doubled the work force by opening the way for women to work in heavy labor jobs... the economy was booming.
But we got lazy, and everyone else is catching up. If the United States is to continue to be a major world power, we must be competitive with the rest of the world.
In my opinion, #1 on that list is requiring that students learn at least one foreign language in the public school system, preferably starting at middle school level.
I'm in total agreement.
The United States has had the economic advantage on the world since World War II. We had the least damage to our economy, had no rebuilding to do, and we'd built dozens of factories, virtually doubled the work force by opening the way for women to work in heavy labor jobs... the economy was booming.
But we got lazy, and everyone else is catching up. If the United States is to continue to be a major world power, we must be competitive with the rest of the world.
In my opinion, #1 on that list is requiring that students learn at least one foreign language in the public school system, preferably starting at middle school level.
01-16-2004 | 12:36 PM
#87
Banned
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,058
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, FL
Originally posted by wedley2
exactly, becuz most of america is all ME, ME, ME. Only wants to speak english, they goto mexico and not even try to speak spanish but drink all their beer and piss on thr streets.
exactly, becuz most of america is all ME, ME, ME. Only wants to speak english, they goto mexico and not even try to speak spanish but drink all their beer and piss on thr streets.
01-16-2004 | 12:48 PM
#88
bboy Wesley West
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,390
Likes: 0
From: six-five-o
Originally posted by sxecrow
Right on. I absolutely think you speak the language of the country you're in. If someone is here in the States, I expect them to speak ENGLISH. However, if I go to another country, you're damn right I'll try and speak their langauge. I dont expect anyone to inconvience themselves on my behalf. It's even standard naval behavior - if you have a ship in someone elses territorial waters, you fly their flag above yours. It's just common courtesy.
Right on. I absolutely think you speak the language of the country you're in. If someone is here in the States, I expect them to speak ENGLISH. However, if I go to another country, you're damn right I'll try and speak their langauge. I dont expect anyone to inconvience themselves on my behalf. It's even standard naval behavior - if you have a ship in someone elses territorial waters, you fly their flag above yours. It's just common courtesy.
01-16-2004 | 01:14 PM
#90
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Right now I do not see many solutions coming from the left. And I am not just talking about people posting here. If you look at the democratic presidential candidates they are not offering solutions, they are either a) attacking Dean, b) attacking each other, or c) criticizing President Bush. Dean has repeatedly stated his oposition to the war in Iraq...but has he offered a solution to it now that we are already there? To my knowledge I do not think he has. (someone correct me if I am wrong).
The only things I hear coming from the democrats is that Bush is wrong, from tax cuts, to the war, to the defecit, to the economy. But Bush's presidency is almost a 180 degree turn from Clinton's Presidency. So if Bush is so wrong, wouldn't that make Clinton right. Now that scares me. Why? Because look at all the escalation in terrorist attacks that happened during his 8 years in office. Each attack got larger, more brazen, and more lives were killed in each attack. And when Sudan offered Bin Laden to the US on a silver platter Clinton passed
And it is not like Clinton had a briliant military record as commander in chief. Somalia was a flop because he would not commit the needed troops. And when US soldiers got killed we pulled out. What did that show the terrorists? You kill Americans, they leave. After the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Nairobi what did we do? Spent millions of dollars on cruise missles to hit a few tents and a donkey in Afghanistan. And when the USS Cole was bombed you would think Clinton was unaware of it our military reaction was so stellar.
So what did this all culminate in? 9/11. And now that we have a President that takes no shit from people, and is not affraid to put the needed troops on the ground to send a serious message to terrorists people want to complain. To me it is mind boggling that people are upset that our President has finally said "Enough!" and has gone on the offensive putting the terrorists on the run, into hiding, and on the defensive.
I am really curious what people would be saying had Bush taken a page out of Clintons military book, lobbed a few cruise missles and called it a day, and then another, bigger terrorist attack occured. My money says the same people bitching about Iraq would be the same ones bitching Bush did nothing.
The only things I hear coming from the democrats is that Bush is wrong, from tax cuts, to the war, to the defecit, to the economy. But Bush's presidency is almost a 180 degree turn from Clinton's Presidency. So if Bush is so wrong, wouldn't that make Clinton right. Now that scares me. Why? Because look at all the escalation in terrorist attacks that happened during his 8 years in office. Each attack got larger, more brazen, and more lives were killed in each attack. And when Sudan offered Bin Laden to the US on a silver platter Clinton passed
And it is not like Clinton had a briliant military record as commander in chief. Somalia was a flop because he would not commit the needed troops. And when US soldiers got killed we pulled out. What did that show the terrorists? You kill Americans, they leave. After the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Nairobi what did we do? Spent millions of dollars on cruise missles to hit a few tents and a donkey in Afghanistan. And when the USS Cole was bombed you would think Clinton was unaware of it our military reaction was so stellar.
So what did this all culminate in? 9/11. And now that we have a President that takes no shit from people, and is not affraid to put the needed troops on the ground to send a serious message to terrorists people want to complain. To me it is mind boggling that people are upset that our President has finally said "Enough!" and has gone on the offensive putting the terrorists on the run, into hiding, and on the defensive.
I am really curious what people would be saying had Bush taken a page out of Clintons military book, lobbed a few cruise missles and called it a day, and then another, bigger terrorist attack occured. My money says the same people bitching about Iraq would be the same ones bitching Bush did nothing.