Hoo yeah! The economy's ON FIRE!
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 02:39
VIEWED: 7512
PAGE 2 of 7
"stunting the steady, healhty growth that has been going on under Bush's 2 terms"
Then why has the stock market been behind inflation all these years ?
Why has China announced it will decrease its dollar holdings ?
Why are there more poor and uninsured after Bush than before ?
Why did the Federal deficit - just beginning to be paid down under Clinton - turn into a record deficit under Bush ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Trickle down doesn't work, never has never will. Rich people getting richer, doesn't make everyone richer, it concentrates wealth in the hands of the elite. It's backed by the evidence, where you have tax havens, you have widening gaps between rich and poor, you also have lower social mobility.
Wrong. As usual. The rich keep doing what made them rich in the first place, and that's make smart choices w/ their money. No one has EVER gotten rich by accepting Gov't hand outs and subsidies. Ever.
Quote:
In responce proponents of 'trickle down' respond with some vague hand waving about the rich spending more. But if they're getting richer they're spending a lower percentage of what they're makng, it's simple math.
No, they're investing it more, as they anticipate grown to occur, and lo and behold..we have growth! Instead of 'playing it safe', as is the case when there's no or little growth expected, they see the signs and are willing to losen up their purse strings, invest in growing areas of the economy, and SOMEHOW those who had some $$ before now have MORE $$$ !! What a nutty concept! Except that it works, every single time. And the crap about 'only' the rich making more $$? That's more socialist bullshit. More $$ for investment means more people can start a new business of their own. That means folks who DON'T have the capital can borrow it, earn money, pay back the capital + interest, which gets their businesses started and gives a healthy return to those who risked investing in the 1st place. It's called a WIN/WIN situation.
Trickle Down 101 is now concluded. Thank you for attending.
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"stunting the steady, healhty growth that has been going on under Bush's 2 terms"
Then why has the stock market been behind inflation all these years ?
Why has China announced it will decrease its dollar holdings ?
Why are there more poor and uninsured after Bush than before ?
Why did the Federal deficit - just beginning to be paid down under Clinton - turn into a record deficit under Bush ?
it hasn't.
dunno
ask the insurance companies
the budget is scheduled to be balanced soon,provided the tax cuts remain. If the Dems raise taxes, then it's on them.
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1)
year --- DOW close --- inflation adjusted value for 2000
_________________________________________________________
2000 --- 10734.90 ----- 10734.90
2001 --- 10189.13 ----- 11040.36
2002 --- 9226.43 ------ 11214.92
2003 --- 8993.59 ------ 11470.51
2004 --- 10317.39 ----- 11775.97
2005 --- 10547.67 ----- 12174.95
2006 --- 11408.67 ----- 12567.69
In other words (if you can't figure out what the numbers mean) the DOW NEVER closed above the inflation adjusted value for 2000.
2)
Could it be the dollar is sinking ?
http://www.x-rates.com
3) See figure 9 - look at the years 2000 - 2005. After dropping 1993 - 2000 (ie Clinton), POVERTY rates increase 2000 - 2005 (ie Bush).
http://www.naspaa.org/about_naspaa/about/presidential_address/Kathy_Ne
wcomer.pdf
4) "the budget is scheduled to be balanced soon"
Is that with or without the cost of the Iraq war factored in ? B/c the Bush administration has never put it in the regular budget. He chooses to fund it under 'emergency spending' bills, which aren't totaled into the budget statistics.
So - is THIS your steady growth, beneficial, 'trickle down' economy with a 'balanced budget'?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also if you have a reply to this (above)?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor: I know I asked you once upon a time what economic indicators you were using for your prognostication. You've been kind of bobbing and weaving over several possibilities: home prices, unemployment, Federal revenues, the stock market etc. Is your REAL indicator whether or not we have lots of billionaires and lots of poor people? Because by THAT standard Mexico, Rwanda, India, and any number of other third-word countries are doing "very well".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I think we can blame the incredible deficit on Bush and his invasion of Iraq, which I now understand to have been unnecessary and detrimental. (You may disagree, but I can't see it any other way.)
We can thank Clinton for finally getting the deficit under control, and we can thank Bush for making the deficit into a monster again.
That having been said, I don't think we can blame Bush for the failing economy.
Business failures like Enron, and national insecurity after 9/11 combined to put the economy on weak footing. Interest rates were lowered to bolster the economy. This all happened at the onset of the Bush reign, and would have likely occurred whoever was in power.
The housing crisis developed because banks took advantage of the low rates to grant loans that could not previously be granted, and customers took advantage of the low rates to get loans they shouldn't have been able to get. This also probably would have happened regardless of who was in power.
The housing crunch has hit all financial institutions, and caused additional insecurity in the market.
I can blame Bush for the deficit, but a lot of the economical troubles outside of the deficit would probably have occurred no matter what. Hopefully, we've all learned from these incidents and won't make similar mistakes in the future... but the worst isn't over yet. I suspect the next president, whoever that is, will be eating these problems for their first term.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I have read is that b/c Clinton was addressing the Federal deficit (by raising taxes) businesses were reassured that bond and interest rates were going to stay stable (they wouldn't be competing w/ the Federal government for borrowed cash). Also, b/c he raised the minimum wage consumer confidence was high. Hence, an expansive, stable economy.
BTW Clinton ALSO had a major terrorist attack on the WTC early in his first term. But unlike Bush he didn't fear-monger (which itself dampened the economy under Bush) or derail the economy with reckless spending.
Some things really can be traced to Bush.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
I understand your comments, but please don't compare the first WTC attack to the second. The 'car bomb that couldn't' doesn't compare to a coordinated simultaneous attack on multiple targets by multiple planes, the destruction of several buildings, and the grounding of all air traffic for several days. They are not nearly in the same category in regards to impact.
As I've said, Bush IS responsible for reckless spending. That's where we agree.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Business failures like Enron were promoted by deregulation, which was directly traceable to Bush and friends (specifically Phil Gramm and his wife)
That having been said, I don't think we can blame Bush for the failing economy. Business failures like Enron, and national insecurity after 9/11 combined to put the economy on weak footing.
Quote:Not true. The basis of a sound economy is the purchasing power of the vast majority, not the wealth of a tiny minority. For all of the things that Clinton did wrong, he did two things right: He raised the minimum wage, and reduced the Federal deficit. Bush did the exact opposite: He reduced the earning power of the vast majority, and went into hock in a big way by reducing taxes (mostly on the wealthy) and increasing govt spending.
Interest rates were lowered to bolster the economy. This all happened at the onset of the Bush reign, and would have likely occurred whoever was in power. The housing crisis developed because banks took advantage of the low rates to grant loans that could not previously be granted, and customers took advantage of the low rates to get loans they shouldn't have been able to get. This also probably would have happened regardless of who was in power.
Quote:If you try and stimulate the economy by extending credit, the stimulous can only last so long. Eventually the bills come due. Again, this can only be corrected by raising the minimum wage.
The housing crunch has hit all financial institutions, and caused additional insecurity in the market.
Quote:I blame Bush for actively transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. That happened right before the Great Depression too.
I can blame Bush for the deficit, but a lot of the economical troubles outside of the deficit would probably have occurred no matter what. Hopefully, we've all learned from these incidents and won't make similar mistakes in the future... but the worst isn't over yet. I suspect the next president, whoever that is, will be eating these problems for their first term.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME