It's the economy, stupid!

[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.

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.

You are partially correct by emphasizing human capital. (That was how Malaysia threw off 3rd world status in the late 80's, going into the 90's). That is as important as also considering the less popular U.S. gov't option, of reducing corporate taxes.

U.S. companies have been at a significant disadvantage in the world economy as American businesses, both large and small and across all industries, pay from 35% to 41.6% of their income in COMBINED Federal AND State taxes.
Compare that to socialist France, where companies pay 34.4% in taxes, China 25% (no wonder they buy our debt), and Russia 24%.
Reducing U.S. corporate taxes along with investing in human capital, would be the best of both worlds towards fostering economic growth and wages.

 

[Political Junky]

still running with that "inheritance" bullshit?

Reagan was still blaming Carter in 1984.

 

[B. Kidd]

As an addendum to reducing the the Federal corporate tax structure in order to globally compete, the Fed would also have to cap what states can tax corporations in order to compete.
But, the Fed reigned in Az.'s immigration law, so I'm sure they can reign in what a particular state can tax a corporation within constitutional bounds too.
Just an idea Bob, spurred by your pensive response.

 

[The T]

I am starting to see the wisdom in the Democrat's thinking....What is better for the people?....more take home money from their paycheck or less.? The Democrats position,Government should be able to take as much money as possible from the populace,or the Republicans position the people should be able to take home as much money as possible from their paycheck..

Wow it makes sense now....why should I be able to take home any money at all...I have no right to that
money,right Dems?

Didn't you know that all wealth belongs to government?

/SARCASM

 

[JakeStarkey]

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, The Rabbi literally believes those numbers mean what he says they mean. He cannot nuance historical facts and analyze data to make logical inferences. The real Americans through the GOP out in 2006 and 2008 because the GOP no longer represented the best interests of the people. The GOP still does not represent those interests. The GOP will remain in the minority.

 

[The Rabbi]

still running with that "inheritance" bullshit?

Reagan was still blaming Carter in 1984.

Every day??

 

[skookerasbil]

Ah yes, the inheritance of the Bush admin. Meltdown Monday was in Bush's second term. The day after he assured the nation that we were economically fundementally sound. Tarp was done by Bush, neccessary, but painful. However, Bush arranged the bailouts so the miscreants that created the situation felt no pain, his base and all, you know. At least President Obama pointed out the injustice of these criminals continueing to rake in tens of million annually for destroying the economy.

The present job situation is bleak, but far better than it was. Had the meltdown occured in the beginning of Bush's second term, we would be at the depths of the Second Great Republican Depression right now.

meh.............

s0n...........every single post you make in these forums is speculative. I think that is fcukking amazing!!! Your whole fcukking life is an exercise in philosophy. Whether its the environment, economy, politics............fascinating


For the rest of us however, its about the old saying........."reality is 95% perception" and the fact is, things are getting bleak and prospects are getting even bleaker. Translation? The current government including the annointed one's ass is soon to be in a sling. Because thats the way it works. Voters dont give a rats ass about those in power talking about what could have been, should have been and who's to blame from years ago. They want results.

Now...........heres the thing..........results are not and never have been at all important to the liberal. If the intentions are good, the policy is good.............invariably. Fortunately, only about 21% of the country is of the similar opinion. The election changers look right past all that class warfare, bleeding heart BS and look to results. Historic deficits dont matter to the k00k 21%ers.........but they matter mightily to the election changers.


But you go right ahead there asshole posting up the 21%er version of the world!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The responsible conservatives, centrists, and liberals are well aware of what would have happened if the GOP as it was in 2008 and is now had achieved power.

The administration has done wonders in keeping the economy from imploding. Americans want more, but they know the GOP cannot deliver it unless it changes.

Dems will be fine the day afer electon in November; their comfortable majorities will continue in office.

 

[elvis]

Ah yes, the inheritance of the Bush admin. Meltdown Monday was in Bush's second term. The day after he assured the nation that we were economically fundementally sound. Tarp was done by Bush, neccessary, but painful. However, Bush arranged the bailouts so the miscreants that created the situation felt no pain, his base and all, you know. At least President Obama pointed out the injustice of these criminals continueing to rake in tens of million annually for destroying the economy.

The present job situation is bleak, but far better than it was. Had the meltdown occured in the beginning of Bush's second term, we would be at the depths of the Second Great Republican Depression right now.

Why don't you stick to what you are good at: enviroterrorism.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Who's using 'another' yardstick.

Your argument seems to be "My guy fucked up the economy, the day your guy took office, it was his problem".

Let me ask you this: If you buy a brand new car, drive it out the lot and the brakes are faulty, who's fault is it? You can possibly put the blame on three different people - the manufacturer, the car lot owner or the buyer. In my book, the person who is definitely NOT responsible, is the buyer. He relied on the manufacturer to do a good job. In this scenario, Bush is the manufacturer, Obama is the buyer - however, he was a buyer who had no choice about what he bought.

The problem with you guys is that you have ragged him since day one, so you have very little credibility on the matter. Has he made mistakes? More than likely. But he was dealt a stacked hand....And to be honest, any solutions I've seen offered up by conservatives on this board to fix your economic woes have been laughable at best, and downright fiscally irresponsible and worst....

 

[Dr Grump]

[

meh.............

s0n...........every single post you make in these forums is speculative. I think that is fcukking amazing!!! Your whole fcukking life is an exercise in philosophy. Whether its the environment, economy, politics............fascinating


For the rest of us however, its about the old saying........."reality is 95% perception" and the fact is, things are getting bleak and prospects are getting even bleaker. Translation? The current government including the annointed one's ass is soon to be in a sling. Because thats the way it works. Voters dont give a rats ass about those in power talking about what could have been, should have been and who's to blame from years ago. They want results.

Now...........heres the thing..........results are not and never have been at all important to the liberal. If the intentions are good, the policy is good.............invariably. Fortunately, only about 21% of the country is of the similar opinion. The election changers look right past all that class warfare, bleeding heart BS and look to results. Historic deficits dont matter to the kook 21%ers.........but they matter mightily to the election changers.


But you go right ahead there asshole posting up the 21%er version of the world!!!!

Talk about perception. Using your opinion, only 21 percent of the population will vote for Dems. Man, are you gonna look stupid (then again, everything about you is - your avatar, your use of 0 instead of O, your posting style in general. To be honest, whenever I visualise the person typing at the other end of your posts I think of Crunchie the Clown)....

 

[cad]

Let me ask you this: If you buy a brand new car, drive it out the lot and the brakes are faulty, who's fault is it? You can possibly put the blame on three different people - the manufacturer, the car lot owner or the buyer. In my book, the person who is definitely NOT responsible, is the buyer. He relied on the manufacturer to do a good job. In this scenario, Bush is the manufacturer, Obama is the buyer - however, he was a buyer who had no choice about what he bought.

The problem with you guys is that you have ragged him since day one, so you have very little credibility on the matter. Has he made mistakes? More than likely. But he was dealt a stacked hand....And to be honest, any solutions I've seen offered up by conservatives on this board to fix your economic woes have been laughable at best, and downright fiscally irresponsible and worst....

If Obama didn't want to have to handle such an awful economy, he shouldn't have run for president. And if Bush's policies were the only reason we are in this mess, why has Obama chosen to continue them? Bailouts, stimulus, tax cuts, new entitlments, etc?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Who's using 'another' yardstick.

Your argument seems to be "My guy fucked up the economy, the day your guy took office, it was his problem".

Let me ask you this: If you buy a brand new car, drive it out the lot and the brakes are faulty, who's fault is it? You can possibly put the blame on three different people - the manufacturer, the car lot owner or the buyer. In my book, the person who is definitely NOT responsible, is the buyer. He relied on the manufacturer to do a good job. In this scenario, Bush is the manufacturer, Obama is the buyer - however, he was a buyer who had no choice about what he bought.

The problem with you guys is that you have ragged him since day one, so you have very little credibility on the matter. Has he made mistakes? More than likely. But he was dealt a stacked hand....And to be honest, any solutions I've seen offered up by conservatives on this board to fix your economic woes have been laughable at best, and downright fiscally irresponsible and worst....

And that worked in the beginning but using your same analogy if I failed to change the oil in two years and the engine broke down whose fault is it? MINE. That is the problem here, Bush fucked up and then Obama fucked up on top of Bush. Blaming everything on Bush is getting you nowhere and that is what looks like a hack. Are OB's 4 years going to be filled with lamentations of how bad Bush did and that even though NOTHING is getting better Obama has been doing a wonderful job? That will not fly. Obama has had enough time to show at least SOME results and all that has been shown is a failed economic reform policy that does not address the issues, larger debt than even the grate deficit master Bush could aspire to, a medical bill that the people did not want and a massive eco disaster that will not go away. Whether or not you believe that Obama is at fault for any of this or whether or not you agree with these policies they ARE his policies and they are NOT improving the situation on the ground. Unemployment is still high and length of unemployment is hitting all time records. The massive debt that we are incurring that was supposed to fix this problem has not done a damn thing to change the unemployment problem.


It is sad that you cannot seem to understand the damage that is being done to this country by the powers that be. Bush was terrible, I can admit that. What makes it so hard for you to see the same thing that happened to the republicans with their face conservative is happening with the democrats with their fake liberal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let me ask you this: If you buy a brand new car, drive it out the lot and the brakes are faulty, who's fault is it? You can possibly put the blame on three different people - the manufacturer, the car lot owner or the buyer. In my book, the person who is definitely NOT responsible, is the buyer. He relied on the manufacturer to do a good job. In this scenario, Bush is the manufacturer, Obama is the buyer - however, he was a buyer who had no choice about what he bought.

The problem with you guys is that you have ragged him since day one, so you have very little credibility on the matter. Has he made mistakes? More than likely. But he was dealt a stacked hand....And to be honest, any solutions I've seen offered up by conservatives on this board to fix your economic woes have been laughable at best, and downright fiscally irresponsible and worst....

If Obama didn't want to have to handle such an awful economy, he shouldn't have run for president. And if Bush's policies were the only reason we are in this mess, why has Obama chosen to continue them? Bailouts, stimulus, tax cuts, new entitlments, etc?

Nope, meathead, the bailouts and stimulus and etc are part of the solution, not the problem.

Go back and take a history lesson, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, FA_Q2, Obama has not screwed up. Your meat boy, Bush and his pals, did. No comparison. If the economy implodes, then you have a point. But it hasn't, and there is no indication that it will. Go cry 'wolf' elsewhere. Maybe some other sheep will buy it.

 

[cad]

Nope, meathead, the bailouts and stimulus and etc are part of the solution, not the problem.

Go back and take a history lesson, please.

You're right, when Bush bailed out the banks, that was the right thing to do. That was what brought us back from the brink of economic ruin. By the time Obama took office, things were bad, but the worst was behind us.

What exactly did Bush do to cause the economic downturn?

 

[cad]

Obama is quick to point out that he inherited a mess and that it was the GOP's policies that drove us into the ditch. He insists things are better now than they were when he took office, and he is absolutely right. However, the fact that he has to revert to the "things could have been worse" argument and point to an unproveable "jobs saved" statistic to defend his policies is very revealing. While his instinct is to blame Bush for all that is wrong, he needs to address the following. The fact is, many companies are doing much better now than they were in January '09. Corporate profits are up. In fact, companies are sitting on almost $2 trillion in cash, yet they aren't hiring. Why not? Could it be that they dont' know how Obamacare is going to affect them? Or what to expect from the new Financial Reform regulations? Or how much their taxes are going to go up next year? It's Obama's policies, not Bush's, that are behind this jobless recovery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cad makes some good points, primarily that business is not sure whether BHO's programs will harm their profit lines. That is not patriotic, but businesses have never been known for patriotism other than serving the government when a profit can be made.

 

[FA_Q2]

Cad makes some good points, primarily that business is not sure whether BHO's programs will harm their profit lines. That is not patriotic, but businesses have never been known for patriotism other than serving the government when a profit can be made.

So you are going to call the businesses unpatriotic and blame them is that it? It is not the polices that are casting massive uncertainty and destroying profits that are the problem, it is the fact businesses that are the problem and the fact that they want to make a profit.

Face it, these policies are an abject failure. Obama has not saved us from certain doom, he has worsened the recovery process and worse yet, harmed this nation for decades to come.

 

[topspin]

what's going to matter for him is how is the economy a year or two down the road. He needs to back off the anti corp bs if he wants re-election