It's the economy, stupid!

[B. Kidd]

The two-party system has failed. That train left the station, and continues to drive us towards corporate style facism. So lets' just stick with it, hoping things will change, do the same insane things over and over again, hoping it will change.
Once again, term-limits and campaign finance reform, would be a good start towards putting the above train on a siding.
There are still enough good and intelligent people in this country, who think outside of the 2-party box, that the current political system does not give access.

 

[Bob Roberts]

So you are making the argument that the Clinton tax increases were the cause of the economic boom the 1990's? It had nothing to do with the technology boom or the fact that Clinton was able to slash defense spending due to the end of the Cold War? Or the fact that Clinton cut the capital gains taxes or cut welfare entitlements? Or placed a greater emphasis on free trade and deregulation? In your mind, it was the increased tax rates that caused the boom fo the 90's? Can you find one economist to back up that theory?

Agreed – Clinton did do some good things.

What stood out to me from the OP’s message was the following comparison:

“During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%.”

“During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.”

Obviously, there are more metrics to consider when analyzing the performance of an economy, but real wage growth is important to continue our consumer-dependent economy. Easy money from home refinancing, cashing in equity returns, etc. is gone for awhile. We need real wage growth.

 

[rightwinger]

So you are making the argument that the Clinton tax increases were the cause of the economic boom the 1990's? It had nothing to do with the technology boom or the fact that Clinton was able to slash defense spending due to the end of the Cold War? Or the fact that Clinton cut the capital gains taxes or cut welfare entitlements? Or placed a greater emphasis on free trade and deregulation? In your mind, it was the increased tax rates that caused the boom fo the 90's? Can you find one economist to back up that theory?

Agreed – Clinton did do some good things.

What stood out to me from the OP’s message was the following comparison:

“During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%.”

“During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.”

Obviously, there are more metrics to consider when analyzing the performance of an economy, but real wage growth is important to continue our consumer-dependent economy. Easy money from home refinancing, cashing in equity returns, etc. is gone for awhile. We need real wage growth.

When Bush took office, the Dow Jones was at 10750. When he left 8 years later it was at 8150.

Imagine if he hadn't cut all those taxes to spur the economy?

 

[B. Kidd]

So you are making the argument that the Clinton tax increases were the cause of the economic boom the 1990's? It had nothing to do with the technology boom or the fact that Clinton was able to slash defense spending due to the end of the Cold War? Or the fact that Clinton cut the capital gains taxes or cut welfare entitlements? Or placed a greater emphasis on free trade and deregulation? In your mind, it was the increased tax rates that caused the boom fo the 90's? Can you find one economist to back up that theory?

Agreed – Clinton did do some good things.

What stood out to me from the OP’s message was the following comparison:

“During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%.”

“During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.”

Obviously, there are more metrics to consider when analyzing the performance of an economy, but real wage growth is important to continue our consumer-dependent economy. Easy money from home refinancing, cashing in equity returns, etc. is gone for awhile. We need real wage growth.

Unfortunately, Bob, both parties struck out as regards job outsourcing/manufacturing. Players from both parties got their paydays to turn a blind eye to this. Its' called public self-service, not public service for many years now.
Because of dwindling jobs, therefore dwindling union members, the remaining union members are political tools (some being professional protesters), with the remaining members relegated to hoping they'll keep their jobs, remaining pensioners from these unions hoping to collect their monthly check (and in this economy, there are no guarantees that will continue).
Additional future taxes are considered an anti-dote for our out-of-control deficits, that will result in more corporations fleeing, so Bob, where is 'real wage growth' going to come from?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The two-party system has failed. That train left the station, and continues to drive us towards corporate style facism. So lets' just stick with it, hoping things will change, do the same insane things over and over again, hoping it will change.
Once again, term-limits and campaign finance reform, would be a good start towards putting the above train on a siding.
There are still enough good and intelligent people in this country, who think outside of the 2-party box, that the current political system does not give access.

We've been a two-party system for our entire life as a country. Why would you expect that to change now?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Which repugs are those poseur?

Farrrr right, you know, to the right of Mao

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nope, kiddos, we are not going back to the Bush days. I have been talking to conservative evangelicals in Alabama the last few days. They love their local Pubs but have no desire to vote for anyone associated with the Bushies or their policies.

Did they spot you as a poseur?

 

[B. Kidd]

The two-party system has failed. That train left the station, and continues to drive us towards corporate style facism. So lets' just stick with it, hoping things will change, do the same insane things over and over again, hoping it will change.
Once again, term-limits and campaign finance reform, would be a good start towards putting the above train on a siding.
There are still enough good and intelligent people in this country, who think outside of the 2-party box, that the current political system does not give access.

We've been a two-party system for our entire life as a country. Why would you expect that to change now?

I really don't expect it to change, tho' it needs to change, because corruption is so rampant and firmly entrenched between the two parties on the Fed. level, combined with the payoffs being higher than ever before in our history; and the corrupt ethic has trickled down to enough gov't employee underlings to furthur the ruling elite agenda (recent eg.'s MMS, DoD), that there is no turning back, unless systemic change occurs.
Wait and watch as the last major corrupt congressional poster boy, J. Trafficant did 7 years in Federal Prison, and the new poster boy, C. Rangel, will do no time at all!

 

[The Rabbi]

What I stated was that we had a tax increase in 1993. No disaster followed. We had a massive tax cut in 2001, and more in 2003. And disaster did follow.

In both cases there were many, many other factors. However, the results do confirm that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, and tax increases do not kill the economy. And confirm that Republicans cannot be trusted to understand when either is appropriate.

I had a terrific bowel movement in '96. That's probably why the economy did so well.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you are making the argument that the Clinton tax increases were the cause of the economic boom the 1990's? It had nothing to do with the technology boom or the fact that Clinton was able to slash defense spending due to the end of the Cold War? Or the fact that Clinton cut the capital gains taxes or cut welfare entitlements? Or placed a greater emphasis on free trade and deregulation? In your mind, it was the increased tax rates that caused the boom fo the 90's? Can you find one economist to back up that theory?

Agreed – Clinton did do some good things.

What stood out to me from the OP’s message was the following comparison:

“During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%.”

“During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.”

Obviously, there are more metrics to consider when analyzing the performance of an economy, but real wage growth is important to continue our consumer-dependent economy. Easy money from home refinancing, cashing in equity returns, etc. is gone for awhile. We need real wage growth.

When Bush took office, the Dow Jones was at 10750. When he left 8 years later it was at 8150.

Imagine if he hadn't cut all those taxes to spur the economy?

When the Democrats took Congress in 2006 the Dow was at 12000. Two years later it was 8000.
Why in the world would anyone vote for these people again???

 

[B. Kidd]

Agreed – Clinton did do some good things.

What stood out to me from the OP’s message was the following comparison:

“During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%.”

“During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.”

Obviously, there are more metrics to consider when analyzing the performance of an economy, but real wage growth is important to continue our consumer-dependent economy. Easy money from home refinancing, cashing in equity returns, etc. is gone for awhile. We need real wage growth.

When Bush took office, the Dow Jones was at 10750. When he left 8 years later it was at 8150.

Imagine if he hadn't cut all those taxes to spur the economy?

When the Democrats took Congress in 2006 the Dow was at 12000. Two years later it was 8000.
Why in the world would anyone vote for these people again???

Why in the world would anyone vote for anyone again?
Bullets or ballots????
I'll stick with ballots,....... for now..

 

[Dr Grump]

"The question is, do we want a Republican economy again, or do we try to get back to where we were, through the efforts of people that think that the working man and womans efforts are just as worthy of reward as that of the swindling elite."

"Is there any reason at all to vote for another round of Republican incompetance?"


Or you can vote for a Democrat President or a Democrat Congress....Oh wait you guys did that...and where are we now?

Still in fix-up mode after 8 disastrous years of Bush....and will be for some time....

 

[Bob Roberts]

So you are making the argument that the Clinton tax increases were the cause of the economic boom the 1990's? It had nothing to do with the technology boom or the fact that Clinton was able to slash defense spending due to the end of the Cold War? Or the fact that Clinton cut the capital gains taxes or cut welfare entitlements? Or placed a greater emphasis on free trade and deregulation? In your mind, it was the increased tax rates that caused the boom fo the 90's? Can you find one economist to back up that theory?

Agreed – Clinton did do some good things.

What stood out to me from the OP’s message was the following comparison:

“During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%.”

“During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.”

Obviously, there are more metrics to consider when analyzing the performance of an economy, but real wage growth is important to continue our consumer-dependent economy. Easy money from home refinancing, cashing in equity returns, etc. is gone for awhile. We need real wage growth.

Unfortunately, Bob, both parties struck out as regards job outsourcing/manufacturing. Players from both parties got their paydays to turn a blind eye to this. Its' called public self-service, not public service for many years now.
Because of dwindling jobs, therefore dwindling union members, the remaining union members are political tools (some being professional protesters), with the remaining members relegated to hoping they'll keep their jobs, remaining pensioners from these unions hoping to collect their monthly check (and in this economy, there are no guarantees that will continue).
Additional future taxes are considered an anti-dote for our out-of-control deficits, that will result in more corporations fleeing, so Bob, where is 'real wage growth' going to come from?

Real wage growth can be achieved by improving education and emphasizing worker-training programs. The jobs that have been outsourced need to be forgotten because a sheltered, protectionist approach will damage trade relations and encourage inefficiencies. More importantly, we will not get these jobs back even if we wanted to.

I believe international trade is important, and ingenuity is imperative for economic growth. To foster real wage growth, we need to invest in human capital to produce the goods and services of future fast growing industries and technologies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Agreed – Clinton did do some good things.

What stood out to me from the OP’s message was the following comparison:

“During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%.”

“During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.”

Obviously, there are more metrics to consider when analyzing the performance of an economy, but real wage growth is important to continue our consumer-dependent economy. Easy money from home refinancing, cashing in equity returns, etc. is gone for awhile. We need real wage growth.

When Bush took office, the Dow Jones was at 10750. When he left 8 years later it was at 8150.

Imagine if he hadn't cut all those taxes to spur the economy?

When the Democrats took Congress in 2006 the Dow was at 12000. Two years later it was 8000.
Why in the world would anyone vote for these people again???

Now we have the professional liar back. You are saying that the slim majority the Dems had in the House in 2006 was able to pass financial bill over the Senate and Bush's vetos? Now which half of the Republican members help override the vetos of the President?

Rabbi, you really must believe that everybody out here is as stupid as most of those that thank you for your inane garbage.

 

[Old Rocks]

Agreed – Clinton did do some good things.

What stood out to me from the OP’s message was the following comparison:

“During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%.”

“During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.”

Obviously, there are more metrics to consider when analyzing the performance of an economy, but real wage growth is important to continue our consumer-dependent economy. Easy money from home refinancing, cashing in equity returns, etc. is gone for awhile. We need real wage growth.

Unfortunately, Bob, both parties struck out as regards job outsourcing/manufacturing. Players from both parties got their paydays to turn a blind eye to this. Its' called public self-service, not public service for many years now.
Because of dwindling jobs, therefore dwindling union members, the remaining union members are political tools (some being professional protesters), with the remaining members relegated to hoping they'll keep their jobs, remaining pensioners from these unions hoping to collect their monthly check (and in this economy, there are no guarantees that will continue).
Additional future taxes are considered an anti-dote for our out-of-control deficits, that will result in more corporations fleeing, so Bob, where is 'real wage growth' going to come from?

Real wage growth can be achieved by improving education and emphasizing worker-training programs. The jobs that have been outsourced need to be forgotten because a sheltered, protectionist approach will damage trade relations and encourage inefficiencies. More importantly, we will not get these jobs back even if we wanted to.

I believe international trade is important, and ingenuity is imperative for economic growth. To foster real wage growth, we need to invest in human capital to produce the goods and services of future fast growing industries and technologies.

Uh oh. Bob, you are dead meat now. Most here believe the less educated you are, the better. Just read through their constant rants against educating anybody but the very wealthy. They would defund all public education.

Technologies? Tell me that you are not advocating things like creating an energy infrastructure that makes us both consumers and producers. Socialism, I tell you, socialism.

 

[The Rabbi]

When Bush took office, the Dow Jones was at 10750. When he left 8 years later it was at 8150.

Imagine if he hadn't cut all those taxes to spur the economy?

When the Democrats took Congress in 2006 the Dow was at 12000. Two years later it was 8000.
Why in the world would anyone vote for these people again???

Now we have the professional liar back. You are saying that the slim majority the Dems had in the House in 2006 was able to pass financial bill over the Senate and Bush's vetos? Now which half of the Republican members help override the vetos of the President?

Rabbi, you really must believe that everybody out here is as stupid as most of those that thank you for your inane garbage.

Your fact-free posts and channeling of whatever you heard last night on Rachel Maddow mark you as an easily influence liberal stooge.
There is nothing lower.

 

[Old Rocks]

When the Democrats took Congress in 2006 the Dow was at 12000. Two years later it was 8000.
Why in the world would anyone vote for these people again???

Now we have the professional liar back. You are saying that the slim majority the Dems had in the House in 2006 was able to pass financial bill over the Senate and Bush's vetos? Now which half of the Republican members help override the vetos of the President?

Rabbi, you really must believe that everybody out here is as stupid as most of those that thank you for your inane garbage.

Your fact-free posts and channeling of whatever you heard last night on Rachel Maddow mark you as an easily influence liberal stooge.
There is nothing lower.

Now, now, Rabid, you have yet to show where the numbers in the OP were in error.

Because they are not in error. Your Boys screwed the economy up beyond belief. And the working class is paying for it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now we have the professional liar back. You are saying that the slim majority the Dems had in the House in 2006 was able to pass financial bill over the Senate and Bush's vetos? Now which half of the Republican members help override the vetos of the President?

Rabbi, you really must believe that everybody out here is as stupid as most of those that thank you for your inane garbage.

Your fact-free posts and channeling of whatever you heard last night on Rachel Maddow mark you as an easily influence liberal stooge.
There is nothing lower.

Now, now, Rabid, you have yet to show where the numbers in the OP were in error.

Because they are not in error. Your Boys screwed the economy up beyond belief. And the working class is paying for it.

I (and others) have shown this theory to be nonsense virtually every day I have been on this board, numerous times. And yet your side keeps repeating the same thing like it's something no one ever thought of before.
I attribute it to bad potty training on your part.

 

[FA_Q2]

Now we have the professional liar back. You are saying that the slim majority the Dems had in the House in 2006 was able to pass financial bill over the Senate and Bush's vetos? Now which half of the Republican members help override the vetos of the President?

Rabbi, you really must believe that everybody out here is as stupid as most of those that thank you for your inane garbage.

Your fact-free posts and channeling of whatever you heard last night on Rachel Maddow mark you as an easily influence liberal stooge.
There is nothing lower.

Now, now, Rabid, you have yet to show where the numbers in the OP were in error.

Because they are not in error. Your Boys screwed the economy up beyond belief. And the working class is paying for it.

And yet when faced with worse numbers that this president is generating you fall back on the blame Bush train. That is abysmal. If you are going to measure with one yardstick and then try and use another when your guy comes up then you are going to rightly be labeled a hack.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your fact-free posts and channeling of whatever you heard last night on Rachel Maddow mark you as an easily influence liberal stooge.
There is nothing lower.

Now, now, Rabid, you have yet to show where the numbers in the OP were in error.

Because they are not in error. Your Boys screwed the economy up beyond belief. And the working class is paying for it.

And yet when faced with worse numbers that this president is generating you fall back on the blame Bush train. That is abysmal. If you are going to measure with one yardstick and then try and use another when your guy comes up then you are going to rightly be labeled a hack.

"Hack" is something these jokers aspire to. They'd have to work very hard just to earn the title hack.
A few other epithets most dealing with excrement come to mind as a more appropriate description.