deliberate. pre-planned. a f’kin rolling stone moment.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 10, 2004 10:01 PM

Don’t see what the big deal is. Entitled to their own opinions. Didn’t Bush or Cheney call someone an A**hole in the 2000 campaign when they thought mics were off?

Posted by: Ekscalibur at March 10, 2004 10:06 PM

Yup, but Bush was referring to a reporter, not his running opponent. Calling the guy you’re running against a crook and liar is pretty harsh for so early in the campaign.

Posted by: tagryn at March 10, 2004 11:11 PM

The quote is “these guys…”. The fact that it is factually correct must drive the bushies nuts. Just ask Ken Lay.

I’m sure Kerry’s feeling exasperated with the rovarian attack dogs, many of whom have already have spun themselves into an oxycontin rush.

Posted by: S. G. Poss at March 10, 2004 11:49 PM

I’m constantly amused at the correlation that some make to GWB and Ken Lay when the records of “cooked books” go way behind GWB and his presidency.

Posted by: TexasGal at March 11, 2004 12:08 AM

TexasGal, great post — I almost blew beer out my nose. Of course, I know you meant “way beyond” — damn that Freudian slip “thang.”

Posted by: John at March 11, 2004 12:15 AM

It’s funny how the liberal fux can dissect a sentence now (S.G. Poss “The quote is “these guys…”. “, but when they were lying about Bush lying, they could read his speech over and over and still come up with different words than what he said. Selective ADD ?

I think they just have a vested interest along with terrorists and anyone else that wants to see America ‘go down’.

Posted by: Jeff B at March 11, 2004 02:20 AM

The mic incident kinda reminds me of the camera incident when Clinton was attending Brown’s funeral. He was laughing and having a good ol time until he noticed the cameras were on him. He immediately acted like he had tears in his eyes and was terribly sad.

Posted by: Jeff B at March 11, 2004 02:25 AM

John Kerry Pull My Finger Watch

http://www.la4israel.org/wordpress/category/kerry-pull-my-finger-watch/

Posted by: Jewels (AKA Saul) at March 11, 2004 04:24 AM

I don’t know if it’s true - the part about them being the most.

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 08:59 AM

//TexasGal, great post — I almost blew beer out my nose. Of course, I know you meant “way beyond” — damn that Freudian slip “thang.”//

Thanks John, But I sure wouldn’t want to be the cause of your wasting beer. Now I know you didn’t intend to make fun of my speaking ability because I’m a Texan, did you? Frankly, I don’t get the Freudian slip thang between way behind and way beyond. Guess I’m just not anal enough for that.

I prefer to clarify my own words and not leave the insinuation of ..humm.. that picture you drew in you mind.

Way behind = the Enron practice of fraud began long before Bush became President and anyone who has any knowledge of the details of the investigation and prosecution of those involved surely ought to know that. That’s why I’m amused when Bush haters try to blame him for Ken Lay and Co.

Now, way beyond to me means out of Bush’s grasp. That also is true.

Posted by: TexasGal at March 11, 2004 11:26 AM

As a charter member of the ABB Club, I’ve been waiting for something genuine, non-Vietnam related, to come out of Kerry’s mouth ever since Dean’s sabotage-induced implosion as a candidate and THIS is what we get?

I can’t stand Bush for a lot of reasons, but this guy is starting to make me want to puke. He didn’t have anything positive to offer when he was up against Dean other than his “electability” and now he’s saying crap like this to try and buddy up to the average guy. F-ing pitiful.

Posted by: bitter_surfing_monkey at March 11, 2004 11:56 AM

Bush’s failures with regards to the economy cost 341,000 people their jobs this week.

Posted by: x at March 11, 2004 12:44 PM

Uh-huh.

Unemployment rate May 1996- 5.6%
Unemployment rate March 04- 5.6%

Care to spin that x?

Posted by: mark buehner at March 11, 2004 12:51 PM

Wait a gd minute here. You’re accusing Bush of being reponsible for every unemployment claim in the country? 341,000 initial claims, which is down from 500,000 in 01 when Bush took office. So the way I see it the economy is recording 32% less new claims than the were were Clinton’s recession started.

Posted by: mark buehner at March 11, 2004 12:56 PM

Mark:

Actually the recession started in March of 2001. That makes George’s recession.

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 01:07 PM

Mark:

Actually the recession started in March of 2001. That makes it George’s recession.

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 01:07 PM

Boy, I sure do miss those Pet.com jobs.

Posted by: Daniel King at March 11, 2004 01:16 PM

mark: yes— clinton never predicted that 2.6 million jobs would be created by the end of 1996. clinton never recommended turning fast-food workers into manufacturing jobs just to get the numbers up. clinton never backpedaled when he got called on his job predictions, like what bush did.

Posted by: x at March 11, 2004 01:39 PM

Anthony, 3 months on the job and Bush managed to iceberg the entire economy? How? Regardless, if the recession started in March that means by definition there were 3 consequtive quarters of economic economic decline which would put the first one in the winter of ‘00 with Mr Bill Clinton in office. Why is in fact what all the numbers point to. Lets drop this silly charade, yes the downturn started under Clinton. Was it his fault, NO, its called the business cycle. Bush made the recession one of the shallowest in history (check the numbers), It therefore makes sense that the recovery will be shallow as well.

X, you seem to be dodging. Why is 5.6 low under Clinton but high under Bush?

Posted by: mark buehner at March 11, 2004 01:45 PM

care to spin why wage growth is the slowest in 18 years?

or spin your golden boy’s recovery efforts:

“The nation has lost about 2.35 million jobs since March 2001, when the last recession began, marking the longest stretch of labor market weakness since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1939. More than 700,000 of those jobs have disappeared since the recession ended in November 2001.”

700,000 jobs lost since the recession ended.

average unemployment duration: 20.3 weeks, highest since 1984.

percent unemployed for 27 weeks (more than half a year): almost 23 percent, highest since 1983.

now who’s dodging?

Posted by: x at March 11, 2004 02:01 PM

“clinton never recommended turning fast-food workers into manufacturing jobs just to get the numbers up. “

This is a bunk charge. Go read the report yourself. The guy was making a point about the ambuigity of what manufacturing is, not making a recommendation. The fact that the left has abandoned its sense of humor along with its senses is on display again.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi

In fact, I ran a search on this article (its the Economic Report of the President by the head of the ecp) on the term ‘fast food’. Here’s what the dems are claiming is proof that Bush wants burger flippers to be manufacturing jobs. I report you decide:

“Box 2-2: What Is Manufacturing?
The value of the output of the U.S. manufacturing sector as defined in official U.S. statistics is larger than the economies of all but a handful of other countries. The definition of a manufactured product, however, is not straightforward. When a
fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a “service” or is it combining inputs to “manufacture” a product?
…
For policy makers, the blurriness of the definition of
manufacturing means that policy aimed at manufacturing may inadvertently distort production and have unintended and harmful results. Whenever possible, policy making should not be based upon this type of arbitrary statistical delineation. “

Now, does that sound like a recommendation, or like a man defining his terms? Mr x isnt worried about context, what are the odds he even bothered to go to the source material for his libel? Just goes to show, never mind the truth when you’re taking a swipe at Bush. Care to retract x?

Posted by: mark buehner at March 11, 2004 02:04 PM

Nice job Mark. Never mind x, he is a proven liar who will say anything.

Anthony, laying the recession on Bush is laughable.

Posted by: jones at March 11, 2004 02:24 PM

X, you are comparing trends, not the current situation. How can you compare the last 3 years to the 80s or 90s? When was the last time 2 planes smashed into Manhattan and we had 2 major wars in 3 years? Why dont we look at real numbers, today. 5.6% unemployment. 2% interest rates. 1% inflation. Home ownership at all time highs. Thats what matters. The economy is in good shape and clearly on an even bigger upswing. If Kerry thinks he can do better, fine (tax hikes and protectionism, thats the ticket) but its absurd to pretend the current economy is in some sort of freefall. Go look at what the economy looked like under Carter to see that.

Posted by: mark buehner at March 11, 2004 02:25 PM

Posted by x at March 11, 2004 02:01 PM
now who’s dodging?

You, as usual…and you’re NOT very good at it as it requires some semblance of intelligence to do so.

Feds Understate Employment by Failing to Count Many Workers

The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush

Greenspan: Employment Will Grow, Unless Protectionism Intervenes

Posted by: American_Defender at March 11, 2004 02:28 PM

OK, so links didn’t work…(confounded html) NEARLY as irritating as that IDIOT x.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/91150.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/25/171833.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/11/111529.shtml

Posted by: American_Defender at March 11, 2004 02:31 PM

let me know when you’re able to explain away the 700,000 lost jobs since bush’s great recovery in 2003. blaming those lost jobs on 9/11 is the biggest f’n spin i’ve ever seen in my life. dizzy yet mark?

Posted by: x at March 11, 2004 02:44 PM

Anyone know what an ‘x’ looks like when it spins? O Whatta troll.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 11, 2004 02:51 PM

x wrote,

“mark: yes— clinton never predicted that 2.6 million jobs would be created by the end of 1996. clinton never recommended turning fast-food workers into manufacturing jobs just to get the numbers up. clinton never backpedaled when he got called on his job predictions, like what bush did.”

What about the 100,000 police officers Clinton promised would be on the streets with his program? A year later he never comes close to that number.

Oh and more jobs have been created than lossed so far in George’s Economy.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 11, 2004 03:23 PM

X:
The only way our economy is going to crash right now is if we don’t stop spending. As a student of economics I try to follow our economy closley, and frankly I don’t undertsand how you get the numbers your getting. To the best of my knowledge our economy is still on the upswing. The problems looming on the horizon are Social Security and Over Spending.

Posted by: Nanook at March 11, 2004 03:45 PM

since x already took us off topic,

number of people arrested for spying for iraq:
democrats: 1
republicans: 0

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 11, 2004 04:08 PM

Kerry doesn’t seem to have the common sense of a squirrel.

Posted by: Bostonian at March 11, 2004 05:43 PM

Mark:

Anthony, 3 months on the job and Bush managed to iceberg the entire economy? How?

Tax cuts that helped facilitate the exodus of jobs from the US. I wouldn’t blame him exclusively.

Regardless, if the recession started in March that means by definition there were 3 consequtive quarters of economic decline which would put the first one in the winter of ‘00 with Mr Bill Clinton…

That would have been the summer of ‘00 not the winter.

Lets drop this silly charade, yes the downturn started under Clinton.

Charade? Why would you call it the ‘Clinton recession’ when it fact it officially began in March of 2001? A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity. That peak occurred in March 2001.

Was it his fault, NO, its called the business cycle. Bush made the recession one of the shallowest in history (check the numbers)

If this is about business cycles why are you crediting Bush with its recovery?

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 05:48 PM

Anthony Is there something mysterious about Out-sourcing? Personally, I’m livid about the Amnesty program. Do a little bit of Googling on ‘Operation Wet-Back’. I am NOT opposed to LEGAL immigration, and I’m damned upset that I have to carry the load (and you prolly more than I) with the increases required in Social Services, Food Stamps, etc., when ILLEGAL immigrants are given the freakin’ GreenLight. Note in particular the NUMBER of illegals who were sent back during that operation. In our rush to be focused on job growth, a simple NO and a free trip to the border would go a long ways toward allowing CITIZENS to get jobs, menial as they may be, and lay the onus on Employers to be fair with their employees. Some people who are already citizens would dearly love to have a job that is currently going to someone who does not PROPERLY belong here.

Sorry. /Rant off

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 11, 2004 06:27 PM

Anthony,

The tax cuts did not get passed until may 2001.

I have never heard tax cuts cause outsourcing. If that is the case, why are jobs moving from Massachusetts and other tax hells to Florida etc?

There is nothing Bush could have done in 2 months to cause a recession that didn’t involve nuclear weapons or giant remote control insects.

Let Gabe type for a while.

Posted by: jones at March 11, 2004 07:14 PM

So we get this check from the IRS two years ago. I try to explain to people that it’s an advance but they don’t listen. Then they spend it and when the next year comes around, they end up paying it back because GWB forgot to mention it to them.

Anthony talks about business cycles. Well Jr. is about to get a cycle just like Sr. did.

Posted by: CandyApple at March 11, 2004 08:13 PM

anthony: Actually the recession started in March of 2001. That makes George’s recession.

wouldn’t it be awful for your argument if the committee that sets the dates of recessions changes its start date to november of 2000?
recession start discussion

the nber made made the march ‘01 announcement in november of that year. since then, data that the nber use to determine the starting dates has been revised.

from the article:
[nber spokesperson] Zerwitz added that neither Bush nor Clinton should be held responsible for a cyclical recession.

but i am interested in hearing how tax cuts cause outsourcing of jobs. maybe just a teaser: is it corporate or personal tax cuts that cause them?

candyapple, these people that won’t listen to your explanations, i recommend you hang out with them more often than the ones you can convince.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 11, 2004 08:22 PM

jones:

Let Gabe type for a while.

LOL.

If I own or control a business that is particularly suited for the relocation abroad (either whole or in part) and I am trying to decide where to invest, I might, in an election year, forestall my investment decision until after an election, especially if I am looking at moving abroad. Pro-business tax cuts and government policies would certainly facilitate my ability to make my move. And isn’t that as in 1980, exactly what happened?

Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle. But government and politicians can accelerate or forestall the timing of ‘the bust.’ If you look at the recent history of business cycles you might notice that recessions most often follow the change of an adminstration. Wow.

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 08:28 PM

Certainly there’s been positive job growth throughout the last few years, and American corporations and to a lesser extent, the Amerian consumer have been the beneficiary of such growth. The current problem for us in the US, is the location of those jobs.

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 08:35 PM

To tell you the truth, I don’t give a squat what Kerry thinks of Republicans. It’s not that I dislike Republicans, it’s just that I don’t care what Kerry thinks about them. This would be a wonderful opportunity, however, for Kerry to make a Churchillian statement about how he is going to stand with the Spaniards and take the fight to Al Qaeda.

Posted by: popd at March 11, 2004 08:41 PM

Anthony,

The last recession was 91-92.

This one was brief because tax cuts. Why pack up and leave when the climate is growing more positive? Also, I don’t think free trade is at all bad.

I respect your thoughts, but disagree with you and think you are pushing beyond facts.

Posted by: jones at March 11, 2004 09:08 PM

Pro-business tax cuts and government policies would certainly facilitate my ability to make my move.

i had half a page of sarcastic remarks all typed up for that comment, anthony, (tis true, really) but i lost focus midway through and ended up just being mean. i am correct to say that by your reasoning, anything that increases profitability would facillitate and thus be a cause of outsourcing?

i would just recant the statement as an ill-conceived thought.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 11, 2004 09:12 PM

from the bureau of labor and statistics
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/supptab.txt

hourly compensation costs in u.s. dollars for production workers in manufacturing

in 1996:
u.s. $17.70
average of 29 selected countries $15.01

in 2002:
u.s. $21.33
average of 29 selected countries $14.13

i think this might be tied to the reason why some companies outsource.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 11, 2004 09:37 PM

…now. outsource now, that is.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 11, 2004 09:41 PM

jones:

I said most and you quote one?

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 10:06 PM

// i am correct to say that by your reasoning, anything that increases profitability would facillitate and thus be a cause of outsourcing? //

I didn’t say that. I said If I own or control a business that is ‘particularly suited’ for relocation abroad then pro-business policies etc.. I didn’t mean that all policies are specifically crafted for job exportation. Is that what you read into my comments?

// i think this might be tied to the reason why some companies outsource. //

So we agree. I’m not sure what you took offense too?

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 10:14 PM

Outsourcing? Do you mean job exportation? LOL

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 10:16 PM

Regarding Kerry’s comments, I see it as a VERY costly mistake on his part. Call it an accident. Call it Karma…………whatever. It doesn’t matter now. It has already cost him.

Reality dictates that all but approximately 17% of the voting population has made up their mind. Those 17% are the target of all political comment between now and November 2nd. By inference, Kerry has accused every person that has, or those people who may be thinking about voting Republican,……………..a liar.

It doesn’t matter whether Kerry meant the remarks to be directed at the leaders of the Party. It’s the way the brain perceives the data that matters. If you’re a Republican, you’re a liar. You’re a thief. You steal elections……………… And that’s a costly mistake.

Posted by: ET at March 11, 2004 11:02 PM

By inference, Kerry has accused every person that has, or those people who may be thinking about voting Republican,……………..a liar.

How about duped.

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 11:18 PM

Regarding Kerry’s comments, I see it as a VERY costly mistake on his part. Call it an accident. Call it Karma…………whatever. It doesn’t matter now. It has already cost him.

I don’t see it as a mistake.

Posted by: Anthony at March 11, 2004 11:19 PM

Hmmm…..a computer virus must have gotten into the microphone….

You know…I kind of expect Democrats to lie, so I’m not overly surprised…but still…it bothered me that Clinton didn’t even bother to make up believable lies. “Uhhhh….well….it depends on what your definition of “is” is. It was essentially an attitude of “I’m the President, and I don’t give a fuck whether you believe me or not, because there’s nothing you can do about it.”

The thing is, Kerry’s not even President and he’s already acting the same way.

Posted by: jeffers at March 12, 2004 01:59 AM

oh gee, I’m convinced now, lets vote for kerry, yea, nifty!
the hell with the country, as long as we get bush out, thats the main goal, who gives a damn is terrorists swarm us like flies?
kerry will just scratch himself 3 times and go hide somewhere and protest something.
seal the borders, raise taxes to the hilt, screw bushes tax cuts, Yea! I’ll go for that!
who gives a damn if I have to pay that extra 3 grand at the end of the year?
No single mother making 35g’s a year needs a tax refund anyways!
Did kerry say he’ll be Tough on terrorists? Yea he did, oh but he changed his mind, that was last week, and he said that was only good for last week, he’s completely changed his position now,
whats that, did kerry say health care?
Oh yes he did, but that was months ago, way early in the campaign, he’s completely changed his approach to that, yes, world concepts, and a team, yes, he has to send a team so he can get, reliable information from canada be fore he cando anything on health care, yea, thats it

Kerry’s an idiot. might as well do what his 9/11 fireman actor said, vote for Saddam

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 12, 2004 05:12 AM

Anthony I know quite a bit about Out-sourcing - The kind where the ‘off-shore’ programmers write code whilst I’m sleeping, and it’s all ready for PrimeTimeTesting when I wake up. I suppose manufacturing falls into that category as well, but you have to remember we are also THE largest market for consumable products.

And I note you are disctinctly avoiding the business of illegal immigrants in this argument. Why is that? Is it because there is some truth to the argument that a portion of the job market is being ‘stolen’ from Citizens, or because YOU can hire cheaper labor if it is illegal?

On Topic, Kerry has been making stupid ridiculous statements for thirty years, but when the audience increases exponentially, the bed you’ve been sleepin’ in has more hidden cameras focussed on it. He made the bed. Now he can sleep in it. It’s no wonder he needs Botox treatment. Maybe he ought to have his upper lip injected next time. Or maybe he just ought to have the uppers and lowers stitched together.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 12, 2004 08:09 AM

I had to reread this a few times. I couldn’t believe my eyes. Not that this happened but that it happened in full sight. LOL.

Six months after promising to create an office to help the nation’s struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on someone to head it, but the nomination was being reconsidered last night after Democrats revealed that his candidate had opened a factory in China.

Deception is the order of the day.

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 09:00 AM

DOC:

You are correct. Illegal immigration is another problem for the American worker. I have never hired an illegal to work for me and never would, period - done - case closed. This President’s sights are so focused on the American Corporation that he proposed immigration policies that even his base would not support. What do you make of that? Some might argue that whatever is best for the Corporation is best for our nation. Do you agree with that? I certainly don’t.

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 09:06 AM

Six months after promising to create an office to help the nation’s struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on someone to head it, but the nomination was being reconsidered last night after Democrats revealed that his candidate had opened a factory in China.

Orwellian doublespeak?

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 09:09 AM

DOC:

// I suppose manufacturing falls into that category as well, but you have to remember we are also THE largest market for consumable products. //

If we are not careful we are going to cosume ourselves.

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 09:10 AM

anthony, i took offense to this comment.

Tax cuts that helped facilitate the exodus of jobs from the US.

i don’t know how i should have read it other than: tax cuts facilitated and thus caused outsourcing. hence, an extension would be anything that resulted excess capital would be a facillitator (my words! i’m asking how my application of what appears to be your reasoning is wrong).

i agree with you that the govt can craft policies that lead to outsourcing (one of which could be an oppressive tax structure causing companies to incorporate overseas - but thats counter to the current argument), but didn’t address that portion of your point because i don’t know if there are particular policies your refering to.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 12, 2004 10:31 AM

Anthony,
All the major auto manufacturers have plants in China, not just the US, but the Japanese and the Europeans. Does that mean that some how Bush decieved EVERY major auto manufacturer to open plants in china so he can outsource jobs? Is your tinfoil hat secure? Did you know some of these plants were relocated from Mexico?

Outsourcing has everything to do with cheap labor and efficiency. There is a huge burden on companies who employ people in the US, they have inumerable regulations, payroll taxes and higher wage expectations. By lowering taxes, Bush is helping jobs stay in the US because the tax burden on companies is reduced, making them competitive with companies that outsource.

Kerry’s protectionism will kill companies. Any that stay in the US won’t be able to compete on the world market, so they will close, and all those Jobs Kerry “SAVED” from outsourcing will be gone for good.

And just so you know, I work in manufacturing, so I have some clue about outsourcing and it’s effect.

Posted by: Brian at March 12, 2004 10:43 AM

The conservatives out there that are touting tax cuts as the greatest single achievement of the Bush presidency are correct. That is his greatest achievement. But it is not as good as you think.

In addition to the tax cut, the Bush administration and the republican led congress have passes laws and regulations that have completeley strapped the states in the form of decreased funding and unfunded mandates (no child left behind; terrorism alert level increases). As a result, state taxes are being increased substantially in the form of income, property, and sales taxes.

It’s a house of cards, friends.

And another thing . . .

I have to call bullshit on those who are posting comments stating that a vote for Kerry is supporting terrorism and reflects a desire to destroy this country.

to wit:

//I think [liberal fux] just have a vested interest along with terrorists and anyone else that wants to see America ‘go down’.//

//the hell with the country, as long as we get bush out, thats the main goal, who gives a damn is terrorists swarm us like flies?
kerry will just scratch himself 3 times and go hide somewhere and protest something.

This intellectually bankrupt hyperbole is quite unbecomming your cause. This simply further demonstrates why the current coalition coexisting underneath the conservative banner cannot be trusted with political power.

Posted by: Todd at March 12, 2004 10:56 AM

Speaking of political appearances…How about Bush’s appearance at a manufacturing plant in Long Island?

The story is a scream, the backstory sort of depressing.

link to “He nice” what better reason to re-elect the guy?

Posted by: buttonpusher at March 12, 2004 11:22 AM

Anthony:
My question to you is; have you ever even taken an introductionary course in economics? Your comments make no sense.

Tax cuts and increased government spending are a way to stop a recession. It works something like this; The way you get out of a recession is to spend money. There are two ways to do this; one is government spending (which increases defecit) and the other is cutting taxes (which incourages the public to spend money without increasing decifits.) Out government did both of these, and this is why the recent recession has been so small. (this does cause long term problems since they had to “borrow” tons of money.)

Problem comes when the government doesn’t pull out. Once the economy is on the upswing the government is supposed to get its hands out of the cookie jar. If they don’t then the burst in the economy is cut short and we enter another, steeper, recession. Truth is that the tax cuts were a good idea, but we have to stop spending so much damn money.

Don’t take my word for it; ask anybody who knows jack shit about economics.

ALSO: To blame the recession on Bush is childesh and shows that you have no understanding of how the economy works. Recessions don’t happen over night, you build up to them. The single biggest cause for a recession is the buisness cycle (if you want I can explain why. But I don’t think you really care that much.) While government tampering can increase the chance of a recession, a tax cut (due its very nature) can not.

Tobb:
I think its funny how you blame the increased spending on the Rebulicans when the Democrats pushed through even bigger budgets through. We can thank the democrats for a bloated “Homeland Security.” They bumped it up by some 25 million dollars.

Both sides tried to out spend the other. So blame belongs to all parties.

As far as city budgets go, you are absolutley correct. The change in proirities for our nations spending has seriously hurt us. Cities are strapped for cash and have been cutting education so that they can pay for increased airport security and event protection. Every time we get a terrorist scare they have to spend millions of dollars.

Bedrock principle of economics is that nothing is free. First rule of politics is offer everyone a free lunch. This causes problems; and its not a partisan issue. Please don’t make it out to be.

Posted by: Nanook at March 12, 2004 11:37 AM

Anthony:
My question to you is; have you ever even taken an introductionary course in economics? Your comments make no sense.

Tax cuts and increased government spending are a way to stop a recession. It works something like this; The way you get out of a recession is to spend money. There are two ways to do this; one is government spending (which increases defecit) and the other is cutting taxes (which incourages the public to spend money without increasing decifits.) Out government did both of these, and this is why the recent recession has been so small. (this does cause long term problems since they had to “borrow” tons of money.)

Problem comes when the government doesn’t pull out. Once the economy is on the upswing the government is supposed to get its hands out of the cookie jar. If they don’t then the burst in the economy is cut short and we enter another, steeper, recession. Truth is that the tax cuts were a good idea, but we have to stop spending so much damn money.

Don’t take my word for it; ask anybody who knows jack shit about economics.

ALSO: To blame the recession on Bush is childesh and shows that you have no understanding of how the economy works. Recessions don’t happen over night, you build up to them. The single biggest cause for a recession is the buisness cycle (if you want I can explain why. But I don’t think you really care that much.) While government tampering can increase the chance of a recession, a tax cut (due its very nature) can not.

Tobb:
I think its funny how you blame the increased spending on the Rebulicans when the Democrats pushed through even bigger budgets through. We can thank the democrats for a bloated “Homeland Security.” They bumped it up by some 25 million dollars.

Both sides tried to out spend the other. So blame belongs to all parties.

As far as city budgets go, you are absolutley correct. The change in proirities for our nations spending has seriously hurt us. Cities are strapped for cash and have been cutting education so that they can pay for increased airport security and event protection. Every time we get a terrorist scare they have to spend millions of dollars.

Bedrock principle of economics is that nothing is free. First rule of politics is offer everyone a free lunch. This causes problems; and its not a partisan issue. Please don’t make it out to be.

Posted by: Nanook at March 12, 2004 11:37 AM

Oops… sorry for the double post.

Posted by: Nanook at March 12, 2004 11:39 AM

wafflestomper:
… tax cuts facilitated and thus caused outsourcing. hence, an extension would be anything that resulted (in) excess capital would be a facillitator.

Since when does facilitate=cause?

facilitate: to make easier : help bring about.

Do I have to explain this in any greater detail?

Brian:
Does that mean that somehow Bush decieved EVERY major auto manufacturer to open plants in china so he can outsource jobs? Is your tinfoil hat secure?

Let me check. Yup … It secure enough.

Did I say it wrong or are you guys reading into my statements things I never said. I didn’t say that Bush tricked anyone into going overseas. I didn’t say taxes cut automatically lead to an across-the-board job exodus. What I said was that Bush’s policies facilitated the process for anyone interested in moving overseas. Not outsourcing rather moving abroad?

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 12:19 PM

Nanook,

With all due respect, how can you possibly suggest that taxes should not be made a partisan issue. My point is that Bush is making tax cust a center point of his campaign (thereby claiming partisan superiority), and his tax cuts, when combined with his other policies (deficit spending and unfunded mandates) evicerate the real economic benefits that would otherwise attend. The political capital may be there for some, but most people have forgotten their $300 checks from two years ago and remember very well the extra $500 they had to include in their property taxes this year, not to mention the extra check they have to write by April 15 to their state and local governments.

Posted by: Todd at March 12, 2004 12:20 PM

And by the way, much of the extra 25 mil advocated by democrats was to fund local governements in coping with terrorism and, thus, the problem would have been even worse were it not for the democrats. Bush clearly is a tax and spend (or borrow and spend) politician like they all are. The problem is, his form of welfare is to his friends, and most of the people who vote for him are not his friends or even beneficiaries thereof.

Posted by: Todd at March 12, 2004 12:27 PM

Nanook:

My question to you is; have you ever even taken an introductionary course in economics?

Yes. I got an A+. Have you ever taken a course in economics? If so, what did you get?

Your comments make no sense.

Which comments? All of them?

Tax cuts and increased government spending are a way to stop a recession.

Sure. It’s one way. Right?

It works something like this; The way you get out of a recession is to spend money. There are two ways to do this; one is government spending (which increases defecit)

Is our current deficit the result of government spending??

ALSO: To blame the recession on Bush is childesh and shows that you have no understanding of how the economy works. Recessions don’t happen over night, you build up to them.

Prehaps you should read more carefully the thread, were Mark called it the Clinton recession.

The single biggest cause for a recession is the buisness cycle (if you want I can explain why. But I don’t think you really care that much.)

No need to. I know what a business cycle is. BTW, if you read carefully I mentioned the business cycle above.

Why don’t list the specific comments you find so ignorant?

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 12:29 PM

From the NY Times today:

For 2003 as a whole, the deficit stood at an all-time high of $541.8 billion over 2002’s $480.9 billion.

The current account deficit has been blamed for weakening the dollar against other currencies, as Americans import more than they export and borrow from the rest of the world to make up for the shortfall in their domestic savings.

Much of this gap has been filled by official foreign purchases of U.S. government bonds, as countries like China and Japan invest dollars bought during massive intervention campaigns to weaken their currencies against the U.S. unit.

Official foreign purchases of U.S. assets in the fourth quarter rose $19.1 billion over the third quarter to $64.4 billion. For the year, foreign official assets in the U.S. more than doubled to a record $207.7 billion from $94.9 billion in 2002.

Overall, foreign assets in the United States increased to $232.0 billion in the fourth quarter, nearly doubling the $119.6 billion of the prior three months.

Yea, this is what we need: China to have the U.S. by the economic short and curlies.

And there are still those who think our greatest threat is a gang of highly motivated religious extremeists living in caves.

Posted by: Todd at March 12, 2004 12:47 PM

Nanook:

The following should have in italicized:

It works something like this; The way you get out of a recession is to spend money. There are two ways to do this; one is government spending (which increases defecit)

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 01:36 PM

ALSO: To blame the recession on Bush is childesh and shows that you have no understanding of how the economy works. Recessions don’t happen over night, you build up to them.

I am not seriously blaming the recession on Bush.

I said “Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle. But government and politicians can accelerate or forestall the timing of ‘the bust.’ If you look at the recent history of business cycles you might notice that recessions most often follow the change of an adminstration.”

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 01:40 PM

I am just curious when Kerry is going to bring ALL of those ‘outsourced’ jobs from the Heinz factories overseas…!?!

Posted by: American_Defender at March 12, 2004 02:23 PM

The subject of the post is the comment Kerry made about those guys lying…

What would you call this? a half-lie?

Bush Exaggerates Kerry’s Position on Intelligence Budget

The way I read the article, Bush not only lies, but he says things that are true of himself, not Kerry. As in “deeply irresponsible”. The more Bush gets caught in these prevarifications, the deeper the hole he’s in. But it’s understandable, he doesn’t have anything else to talk about.

Thank God for the Internet…more accurately, thank God for Al Gore, thank Al Gore for the Internet.

Posted by: buttonpusher at March 12, 2004 02:59 PM

Thank Al Gore for the internet - if the so-called ‘liberal press’ hadn’t distorted his contribution to the development of the internet (and their other anti-gore lies) he probably would have been President. Now why would a press so-liberal do that?

The difference between 2000 and 2004 is that there now exist a 4 year Bush record.

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 03:29 PM

buttonpusher: Thanks for the link.

In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut — about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years — would have “gutted” intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office — the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

Lies lies and more lies. Deception is the order of the day.

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 03:31 PM

Thank God the press is showing some signs of life.

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 03:32 PM

Since when does facilitate=cause?

since March 11, 2004 05:48 PM

immediately after that initial statement, you mentioned that you wouldn’t blame bush exclusively for tanking the economy. you gave a single reason why any blame should be leveled against bush at all.

if your point was not tax breaks as causation, then what is the point in isolating them as a facilitator? why would you blame bush at all if tax cuts are not the root cause of any economic downturn? are you the type that blames general motors for drunk drivers?

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 12, 2004 03:37 PM

This is a juicy thread. I get lost or fall asleep on the economics conversation, but then I noticed this bit from by Mr. Jeffers, purveyor of insightful comments.

“I kind of expect Democrats to lie…Clinton…essentially an attitude of ‘I’m the President, and I don’t give a fuck whether you believe me or not, because there’s nothing you can do about it.’ The thing is, Kerry’s not even President and he’s already acting the same way.”

Of course, Kerry didn’t actually say that, Jeffers inferred it.

And then, I ran across this little tidbit—
“That’s the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.” George Bush/Washington Post, Nov 19, 2002

Performance review coming up, George. I don’t think he’s had many of those. Might have some ‘splainin’ to do.

Posted by: buttonpusher at March 12, 2004 04:01 PM

wafflestomper:

You jumped to a bunch of conclusions. My point was the impending Bush tax cuts were a facilitator. You didn’t read to well what I wrote. One more time. And this is the third time. I said “Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle. But government and politicians can accelerate or forestall the timing of ‘the bust.’ If you look at the recent history of business cycles you might notice that recessions most often follow the change of an adminstration.”

Do you have any idea why a change in administration would effect the business cycle? I getting the impression you don’t.

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 04:08 PM

Jeffers: You expect Democrats to lie because lying is a human trait or because you think lying is a democratic trait? Do Republican Presidents lie? LOL

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 04:12 PM

yeah, anthony, i am having trouble reading, because i read this:

I wouldn’t blame him (bush) exclusively.
and this
That makes George’s recession.

and i think your point is that gwb has caused a recession (see tax cuts as the answer to how) but then i read this:

Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle.

you changed your argument, anthony, and now you want to change the scope of the discussion. the impression i’m getting is that your full of it.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 12, 2004 04:33 PM

answer these simple questions, anthony, to help prevent me from jumping to conclusions.
how is it that you are blaming bush (albeit not exclusively)? what did he do to cause (not affect) this recession?

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 12, 2004 04:38 PM

If you look at the recent history of business cycles you might notice that recessions most often follow the change of an adminstration.

recession 11/73-3/75
recession 1/80-7/80
recession 7/81-11/82
recession 7/90-3/91
recession 3/01-11/01*

ford to carter transition 1/77 waited 36 months
carter to reagan transition 1/81 waited 6 months
reagan to bush transition 1/89 waited 18 months
bush to clinton transition 1/93 didn’t occur*
clinton to bush transition 1/01 waited 2 months*

*(assumes nber will not change its recession start date to 11/00)

i have trouble distinguishing this trend, anthony. perhaps you could help me with some conclusions.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 12, 2004 05:09 PM

I just heard on the news that Heinz owns 79 companies. Out of those 79, 57 are manufactured overseas. Including Heinz ketchup. I haven’t checked the claims out, but if its true, what a f*ing hypocrite. But then I already knew that about Kerry. I bet he sleeps well at night knowing his wifes companies are “outsourcing” jobs.

Posted by: anonymous at March 12, 2004 07:26 PM

Recessions. I said most, not all.

1953 - Eisenhower inaugurated.
1957 - Eisenhower inaugurated.
1960 - ???
1969 - Nixon inaugurated.
1973 - Nixon inaugurated; Watergate hearing begins, Vietnam War ends.
1980 - Carter’s decontrol of oil in June of ‘79
1981 - Reagan inaugurated.
1990 - ???
2001 - Bush II inaugarated.

Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2004 07:41 PM

Looks like another anonymous troll…
the thing that’s wrong with your analysis is that many of those companies are foreign companies. The only one I remember right off is a soy sauce provider from Indonesia. What percentage of Heinz stock is owned by Americans? In the food processing industry, how many good labor jobs are there? What does Teresa have to do with the company? What does Kerry have to do with the company? Sling that mud; it’s all Bush has.

Posted by: buttonpusher at March 12, 2004 11:28 PM

Time Magazine - Bush Divider, Not Uniter; flip/flop or lie
Time Magazine - Bush’s Credibility Gap

Now CBS News is onto the Bush/Rove fraud

The mainstream media has figured him out. It will be a long summer for Mr. Bush

Posted by: buttonpusher at March 12, 2004 11:42 PM

wafflestomper:

You need to go just a little earlier to understand this statements.

That makes George’s recession.

This statement was in response to the post by Mark. Mark wanted to move the football a few yards back and I was putting the football back were it belonged. (Didn’t I already say this at least 2x’s)
——————————————————-
Mark said - Wait a gd minute here. You’re accusing Bush of being reponsible for every unemployment claim in the country? 341,000 initial claims, which is down from 500,000 in 01 when Bush took office. So the way I see it the economy is recording 32% less new claims than the were when Clinton’s recession started.

Posted by mark buehner at March 11, 2004 12:56 PM

——————————————————-
What’s important to me from Mark’s post is in bold. (I’m sure the rest of it was important to)

My initial attempt to place the correct name in front of the word recession was based purely by chronology and nothing else. I initially wasn’t even really trying to blame George, just unspin Mark.

I later attempted to place some blame on him simply because he was going to radically change the direction of the country. Now wouldn’t that give any serious businessman some pause. Catch my drift?

Posted by: Anthony at March 13, 2004 12:35 AM

i see your angle. i think the matter has been completely unspun.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 13, 2004 12:58 AM

Is the Bush administration a bunch of crooked liers? Dennis Haster, Republican Speaker of the House seems to thing so:
Here Dennis is giving a press conference:

Q You met with the administration yesterday. Did they say they would support the target number [for highway funding]?

Speaker Hastert. We need to go forward, we need to go to conference with the Senate, and then if they want to be involved in that conference, they certainly will be able to be involved in it.

Q But did they say they would sign?

Speaker Hastert. They didn’t make a commitment.

Q Did they say they would veto it?

Speaker Hastert. They didn’t say they would veto it.

Q Is that with the President or with the people?

Speaker Hastert. That is with the President. I don’t deal with his people anymore.

…..

Q Sir, what did you mean by that last comment: That was with the President; I don’t deal with his people anymore?

Speaker Hastert. Well, we weren’t getting straight numbers from his people, and they changed their mind in the middle of the process. So we are going to do what we feel we need to do.

Q Just on this issue or on —

Speaker Hastert. On this issue.

Q Or in general?

Speaker Hastert. On this issue.

Q Sir —

Q What kind of numbers were you getting from them?

Speaker Hastert. Different numbers.

Q Different from?

Speaker Hastert. Where they added up.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=131-03112004

To review: Dennis says he cant deal with the administration becouse they wont give him a straight answer….

Posted by: Typhonus at March 13, 2004 06:05 AM

Is the Bush administration a bunch of crooked liers? Dennis Haster, Republican Speaker of the House seems to thing so:
Here Dennis is giving a press conference:

Q You met with the administration yesterday. Did they say they would support the target number [for highway funding]?

Speaker Hastert. We need to go forward, we need to go to conference with the Senate, and then if they want to be involved in that conference, they certainly will be able to be involved in it.

Q But did they say they would sign?

Speaker Hastert. They didn’t make a commitment.

Q Did they say they would veto it?

Speaker Hastert. They didn’t say they would veto it.

Q Is that with the President or with the people?

Speaker Hastert. That is with the President. I don’t deal with his people anymore.

…..

Q Sir, what did you mean by that last comment: That was with the President; I don’t deal with his people anymore?

Speaker Hastert. Well, we weren’t getting straight numbers from his people, and they changed their mind in the middle of the process. So we are going to do what we feel we need to do.

Q Just on this issue or on —

Speaker Hastert. On this issue.

Q Or in general?

Speaker Hastert. On this issue.

Q Sir —

Q What kind of numbers were you getting from them?

Speaker Hastert. Different numbers.

Q Different from?

Speaker Hastert. Where they added up.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=131-03112004

To review: Dennis says he cant deal with the administration becouse they wont give him a straight answer….

Posted by: Typhonus at March 13, 2004 06:05 AM

Re: unemployment rates:
Clinton entered office with unemployment rates in the 7-8% range. By raising taxes on the rich and paying down the debt, holding the line on spending he produced a stable economy that dropped unemployment to around 4%, by creating lots and lots of new jobs.
Bush’s War On Employment, has succeded in raising the unemployment level back to those pre-Clintonian levels. Fortunately for Bush a record number of people (about 6 million) have gotten so discouraged theyve dropped out of the job market and are no longer seeking work. Consequently the labor force participation rate is at an all time low. If these people were added in to the unemployment rate would be 7.4% proving a dramatic success in Bush’s War On Employment. Despite the success’es Bush scored a key victory by keeping the federal government from extending unemployment benefits.
The key of course is job creation and Bush2 has succeeded in keeping job creation well short of the 150,000 new jobs required to keep pace with a growing population. In contrast under Clinton job creation averaged around 280,000 new jobs each month throughout both terms…

Posted by: Typhonus at March 13, 2004 06:19 AM

Heres a link to go with that previous post:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/12/opinion/12KRUG.html?ex=1394514000&en=1daa1b511e19d7ce&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Posted by: Typhonus at March 13, 2004 06:20 AM

Btway- Why are people talking like we are still in a recesion. GDP peaked in February 2001 and dipped that year. We’ve been out of the recesion for over 2 years.

Posted by: Typhonus at March 13, 2004 06:22 AM

Typhonus Growing population? You mean those ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? I thought so. Nice go on providing yourself some spin, though…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 13, 2004 07:29 AM

Anthony:
Actually, to blame the recession on anyone is childesh. When you called it the bush recession, and they called it the clinton recession. Both of you are pointing fingers where no fingers need to be pointed.

As for my economics history, I’ve never gotten lower then an A on any economics course I’ve taken. (I’m currently taking a 400 level course wich I too am aceing.)

So, you are agreeing with me that the recession is no ones fault?
————————

Second off: My comments second comments had nothing to do with tax cuts. They had to do with government spending. What I said was that to blame the increased government spending on the Republicans is stupid. Both sides were trying to outspend the other to show that they were helping the economy. Jesh, please use your eyes before you strart blowing chunks.
—————————————

Finally, the deficiet is absolutley this governments problem. However it is not Bush’s problem, the democrats played a huge part in creating it. It his fault for not cutting back on spending, especially after our economy hit its stride.

Anthony, I respect you and all, but you change your position from post to post. Lets get these few facts striaght.

1.) Recession: not anyone’s fault
2.) Government Spending: not partisan issue. Both sies are guilty as sin.
3.) Tax Cuts: Do not help recessions to happen. They cut them short.
4.) Deficiet is a huge problem and will be looming over our heads in years to come. That and Social Security.

Posted by: Nanook at March 13, 2004 01:08 PM

Nanook,

// Anthony, I respect you and all, but you change your position from post to post. //

Take the time to read what I posted. Show me where I keep changing my mind. Quote me please. You’re taking a 400 level course? Then read what I wrote carefully. My comments need to be taken in their entirety.

Posted by: Anthony at March 13, 2004 02:03 PM

Anthony:
“Yes. I got an A+. Have you ever taken a course in economics? If so, what did you get?”

My economics courses are as follows: Principles, Micro, Macro, Comparative, and Applied (the applied is the 400 level course I’m in now.) All were A’s.

Oh yeah, and I’m an officer in our econ club (SIFE)

And I am in error: I thought X’s comments where your own. However here are a few tidbits of your writting.

“If this is about business cycles why are you crediting Bush with its recovery?”

Because it was Bush’s plan to use the tax cuts, which sped up the recovery.

“Tax cuts that helped facilitate the exodus of jobs from the US.”

Incorrect, tax cuts have the opposite effect. Tax cuts increase consumption, and thus would keep the market domestic. I supose you could argue that the increase in consumption would give them the money they need to move, but I don’t see how it would do it in any other way.

A tax cut from the buisness side would definatley have the opposite effect. It would increase the buisness supply curve and profits. (However, buisness side tax cuts aren’t likley. But then again, raising taxes for buisness isn’t likley either.)

“Actually the recession started in March of 2001. That makes George’s recession.”

This statement could just have been a sarcasm statement but I got the feeling it was a rebutal. X blamed it on Bush, Doc blamed it on Clinton, then you blamed it on Bush again.

ANYWAY: The above squabling is unimportant. Do you agree with the four points I posted in my first lenghty blurb?

Posted by: Nanook at March 13, 2004 04:05 PM

Capn Doc- Im not sure how its growing but it could just be an aging population has more people entering the workforce. In any case 150,000 new jobs being required each month is a well accepted number, although Ive seen some some giving the number as only 125,000- a figure Bush’s War On Employment has still almost completely prevented…
I remember when Bush put out his 2003 “Job Growth Tax Cut”… Bush said it would produce 1.4 million new jobs on top of 4.1 million that the economy would produce anyway without the tax cut-between 7/03-12/04. Recently as a result of Bush’s War On Employment there were around 300,000 new jobs. about a months worth. and it only took them 6 months to do it! Hell even Bush’s people arent standing behind their job creation numbers.

Posted by: Typhonus at March 13, 2004 07:46 PM

nanook-
Re: Tax cuts increase consumption-
Only partially true- the fact is if you, or better yet Bush had given short term tax cuts that resulted in more money in the pockets of low and medium income earners- this would have translated almost completely into increased consumption- stimulating the economy. Instead Bush gave some small amounts to low and medium earners. Most of the tax cuts benefited the richest few substantially. Now they didnt go out and buy alot more, they invested it…(Ill get back to this point in a sec)
For a business owner- he’s suddenly gotten these tax cuts that lower capital gains and lower his income so being able to take more money out of the business is suddenly putting a lot more money in his pocket.
Now combine these two with the weakness of the dollar, and the fact that stocks are trading at historical highs when compared to their income (something like 15X income is the historic average-currently alot of S&P & DJIA stocks are trading in the 20X range) so the implication is as a result of Bush’s tax cuts business arent hiring, and instead people (rich people) are taking their money and investing it overseas… maybe in china or japan where they are keeping the exchange rate favorable (relative to the rest of the world.)
As it is now, Bush wants to make his tax cuts permanent- which we cant afford, and the market knows this.=- and as a result of his ill considered spending, putting forward a low end stimulus package would push the debt levels too high.

Posted by: Typhonus at March 13, 2004 08:03 PM

Typhonus I don’t know if THIS is going to be much help, but… I looked around the site, and came up with a spreadsheet on population of the US provided (I believe) by the government. There appears to be no mention made of ilegal immigrants, but I know in some sectors these workers are relied upon to provide labor for jobs that are below minimum wage. My point (which I am not making very well, BTW) is that even with the onus laid upon employers to pay their employees a fair wage for an equally fair day of work, employers are willing to hire illegals because it puts more jingle in the employer’s jangle. There is no control (that I can see) short of closing down the borders that will stem the tide. Children born in the US are guaranteed citizenship, no matter their parents’ status. That seems terribly unfair to not only the legal immigrant, but also the unskilled and under-educated citizenry. I have to admit that there is compassion on my part for the plight of these immigrants, but I have to wonder how many others (including greedy employers) share my sentiment.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 14, 2004 09:29 AM

Typhonus:
Very good post. You’ve won me over:) One little change, I think you’re meaning to say that it will drastically increase intrest rates.

Posted by: Nanook at March 14, 2004 03:14 PM

Nanook:

Yes and no. I think you statements are too simplistic. Econmics is much more complicated than that. Semantics may be the issue.

1.) Recession: not anyone’s fault.

Government actions can effect the business cycle.

The recession of 1980 was sparked by ‘Carter’s’ decontrol of oil.

1973 recession. There was ‘Watergate.’

2.) Government Spending: not partisan issue. Both sies are guilty as sin.

I would generally agree. Republicans lower taxes, and leave it to democrats to raise them.

3.) Tax Cuts: Do not help recessions to happen. They cut them short.

It depends upon the details of the cut and other economic factors.

1990 recession was followed 4 months later by a tax increase. 4 months after the tax increase the recession ended. (details)

Changes in government policy can cause pauses in investment. Investment in the US, took a dip in November 2000 (election time?) followed by a reduction in employment in March 2001 (recession).

2001: The Tax act of 2001 raises after-tax income by 6.3 percent for households in the top 1 percent (37% of the cut), compared to 2.8 percent or less for the rest. This tax cut comes immediately after a twenty-year period in which the both the pre- and post-tax income of the top 1 percent grew much faster than for any other group. As deficits rise so do interest rates. The net effect of this tax cut will be to reduce investment in the US. How does this tax cut help to reverse the 2001 recession? What were the real goals of this tax-cut? What effect will overseas investments have on the US job market?

4.) Deficit is a huge problem and will be looming over our heads in years to come. That and Social Security.

Well…

Posted by: Anthony at March 15, 2004 09:54 AM

Anthony Really simplistic, but it works for me. In order to FUND SS, you have to have employees paying in. Your BabyBoomers are just about eligible, and because the average life-span has climbed along with the number of eligible, there is not enough (wrap in those illegals whilst you’re at it) givers to take care of the takers. Now mind you, the takers by now have been payin’ in almost 40 years (gettin’ close, Anthony), and that’s some takin’ we’re entitled to. Jobs for illegal immigrants? They ain’t entitled, and on top of that, they ain’t payin’. I could carp for days about this Amnesty crap…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 15, 2004 12:05 PM

President Bush is a liar,he lied about Iraq and continues the lie,unemployment down?hahahah yes less people are collecting because they have run out of benefits now thats a great way to bring the numbers down.I hear McDonalds is hiring,how about ATT,LUCENT,FORD,GM.You cant even eat that garbage.

Measuring the economy is easy just like your bank account if you have more going out than coming in,what is the trade deficeit?

Posted by: Earl Peckham at May 10, 2004 11:31 AM