W's Impressive Record

[mash107]

Presidents have virtually NO impact on the economy. The .com boom-bust had nothing to do with Clinton. This crisis had nothing to do with Bush.

You want government scapegoats? Look to Congress and federal appointees to the SEC, Fed, etc....

Exactly what I said

Federal Reserve is at fault for most of the booms that are ever created, and by extension, the recessions, which must occur to clear out the mistake made in those booms.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SwingVoter]

You're ignoring the part where I said you cut spending along with taxes.

So has the GOP.

85% of budget is interest, defense, soc security, medicare, medicaid, and entitlements, yet didn't hear a peep out of the Republicans about cutting any of these, even though Bush expanded them more than Clinton with his Socialist Medicare Drug plan.

 

[SwingVoter]

Increasing taxes does not increase job creation.

Nor does increasing gov't spending, in spite of what ultralib economists say. And yet W increased spending at more than twice the rate of Clinton.

Obama's $600 billion boondoggle will wind up costing us a lot less than Bush's Medicare Drug plan.

 

[SwingVoter]

Look to Congress and federal appointees to the SEC, Fed, etc....

Alan Greenspan didn't tell Bush to borrow excessively in order to fund Medicare Drug, No Child Left Behind, AIDS research for Africa, or any of his other Socialist spending policies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So has the GOP.

85% of budget is interest, defense, soc security, medicare, medicaid, and entitlements, yet didn't hear a peep out of the Republicans about cutting any of these, even though Bush expanded them more than Clinton with his Socialist Medicare Drug plan.

They certainly did, for the most part. But it's not true that you didn't hear a peep out of the Republicans about cutting spending, Ron Paul came out very strong for cutting the federal governments spending and balanced budgets.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nor does increasing gov't spending, in spite of what ultralib economists say. And yet W increased spending at more than twice the rate of Clinton.

Obama's $600 billion boondoggle will wind up costing us a lot less than Bush's Medicare Drug plan.

Absolutely right, government spending does not help in the least.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Alan Greenspan didn't tell Bush to borrow excessively in order to fund Medicare Drug, No Child Left Behind, AIDS research for Africa, or any of his other Socialist spending policies.

However, by inflating the money supply the Fed does create the boom-and-bust cycles.

 

[editec]

One million less jobs than 8 years ago?

I wonder how many new workers joined the workforce in that time, too?

But hey, unemployment is only at what 7% or so?

More like 14% would be my guess.

 

[xsited1]

Nor does increasing gov't spending, in spite of what ultralib economists say. And yet W increased spending at more than twice the rate of Clinton.

Obama's $600 billion boondoggle will wind up costing us a lot less than Bush's Medicare Drug plan.

I hear 'ya, Swing. It's seems to be dangerous these days to elect a Republican President and a Democrat-controlled Congress. If true, we've got a least a couple more rough years ahead of us.

 

[sealybobo]

One million less jobs than 8 years ago?

I wonder how many new workers joined the workforce in that time, too?

But hey, unemployment is only at what 7% or so?

More like 14% would be my guess.

When we strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes. "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."

The numbers?

Johnson: 4.1 percent
Nixon/Ford: 5 percent
Carter: 1.6 percent
Reagan: 1.4 percent
Bush I: 3.8 percent
Clinton: 2.1 percent
Bush II: 4.8 percent
Viguerie compares the modern presidents on the use of the veto, too. While Johnson used the veto power 30 times, Nixon 43, Ford 66, Carter 31, Reagan 78, Bush I 44 and Clinton 36, Bush didn't use it at all in his first term and has used it just once – for a non-spending issue – in his second term.

 

[sealybobo]

And I hate putting it all on Bush. Bush could not have done this on his own. It was the GOP Congress that helped Bush double the debt. Notice not one veto when the GOP were running Congress. They spent like drunkin sailors on a weekend leave.

 

[sealybobo]

Even though workers are producing more, inflation-adjusted median family income has dipped 2.6 percent -- or nearly $1,000 annually since 2000.

Employees and employers are getting squeezed by the price of health care. The struggle to control health costs is viewed as crucial to improving wages and living standards for working Americans. Employers are paying more for health care and other benefits, leaving less money for pay increases. Benefits now devour 30.2 percent of employers' compensation costs, with the remaining money going to wages, the Labor Department reported this month. That is up from 27.4 percent in 2000.

Since 2001, premiums for family health coverage have increased 78 percent, according to a 2007 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Premiums averaged $12,106, of which workers paid $3,281, according to the report.

This is from March of 2008. Premiums have probably gone up even more.

So fine, the GOP don't want to socialize healthcare? But what did they do from 2001 to 2006 to curb these increases? NOTHING!!!!

So the GOP doesn't like our ideas. That we understand. But do any of us know what they propose? I don't.

 

[mash107]

Even though workers are producing more, inflation-adjusted median family income has dipped 2.6 percent -- or nearly $1,000 annually since 2000.

Employees and employers are getting squeezed by the price of health care. The struggle to control health costs is viewed as crucial to improving wages and living standards for working Americans. Employers are paying more for health care and other benefits, leaving less money for pay increases. Benefits now devour 30.2 percent of employers' compensation costs, with the remaining money going to wages, the Labor Department reported this month. That is up from 27.4 percent in 2000.

Since 2001, premiums for family health coverage have increased 78 percent, according to a 2007 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Premiums averaged $12,106, of which workers paid $3,281, according to the report.

This is from March of 2008. Premiums have probably gone up even more.

So fine, the GOP don't want to socialize healthcare? But what did they do from 2001 to 2006 to curb these increases? NOTHING!!!!

So the GOP doesn't like our ideas. That we understand. But do any of us know what they propose? I don't.

GOP, save Ron Paul, are democrats who like to go to war. I fail to see your point. They may talk like they don't want socialism, but their talk is entirely different than their actions. Printing money to go to war is the main reason for a reduction in the standard of living, and that -is- socialism.

Health care is going up because of the way HMOs are set up. They're essentially a government created monopoly. Employers receive huge tax benefits for giving you health care, and so, there are only a few HMOs, and they only serve your employer, rather than you. Therefore, the market is being hindered completely by the few, monopolistic HMOs and the way the system's set up. So rather than hindering the market or allow rich HMOs make money off us because of regulations, we should completely free it up, as it were in the up until the 1970s.