|
|
|
|
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/19/2008 8:16:03 PM | .
What you mean the news media doesnt infom us?
They decided to only debate with the reblican and democrat runners and no one else! So how many of you have written nasty letters as I have telling them you are done watching them?
I really doubt that people know even to this day that dubyas grandaddy supported the nazis? Thats right out of the national archives. Personally I think that would have been a nice little tid bit to know prior to an election.
Possibly the dumbest way to go is not to vote and not be counted. People say to vote for anyone but rep or dem is a throw away vote and that is so far from the truth.
3rd party votes can throw an election and are considered a protest vote but the 2 parties who have monopolized our political system.
No we cant vote informed simply because there is not enough time to do fulll background checks on them and their history, and the media sure as hell wont help.
. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/19/2008 9:07:26 PM |
It's not backed up by the numbers, and all you have to do is look around and see that the emperor has no clothes.
And you chose to "look around" on the internet and then copy/paste garbage that you think supports your position. For every copy/paste you do I could counter with a copy/paste refutation. That's why I didn't even bother reading your posted diatribe. I never do when people think the rest of us can't use our own search engine and do likewise. Tell me what you think and we can exchange views. I'm sure there is someway to hook up our copumters and let them compete in a search engine drag race.
We aren't talking top fuel drag racing, here.
We are discussing the importance of an informed electorate.
All you can do is label contrary opinions as cut and paste, without any thing in response.
The reason you "didn't even bother reading (my) posted diatribe" is because you don't want to accept what's presented. Any counter argument you provide is going to be a fairly weak one - and so you sidestep it.
Someone claimed that there was a record number of months of job creation, and I responded with some citations of various ways of looking at the economic situation of your country at the moment.
The economy is either in good shape, or it's not. It can't be both. 
Critiquing misleading White House statements about the economy, part 2
International comparisons of employment growth
A recent White House news release contains this claim regarding employment growth:
Since August 2003, we have added more than 5.1 million new jobs—more than Japan and the European Union combined.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060411-9.html)
nternational comparisons of employment growth are tricky—employment growth is very sensitive to the timing of different countries' business cycles. In this case, the White House begins its comparison at the exact point when employment began to rise in the latest recovery, so as to avoid counting the longest jobless recovery on record.
Counting over the full course of the Bush Administration, which also corresponds (for the United States) to the standard that one should measure employment growth from the previous business cycle peak (the first quarter of 2001), the most recent comparable data (the third quarter of 2005) shows that the United States added 1.2 million jobs compared to 7.9 million for the EU15 (the group of 15 European nations referenced by the Bush Administration in their release) and a gain of just under 100,000 for Japan over this time period
The White House result is due to "cherry-picking" the date when they start counting jobs, reinforcing the fact that international employment growth comparisons should be approached with some caution. More importantly, the United States should create more jobs than the EU15 or Japan because its working-age population is growing faster. Over the same time period, the working-age population grew by over 9 million in the United States compared to a rise of only 3 million for the Euro Area and a decline of over 1 million in Japan. The net effect of this differential employment and population growth is shown in Figure B, which shows the change in the employment to population ratio (or epop) for each of these areas. The employment to population ratio shows the share of the working-age population that is currently employed and is a key labor market indicator tracked by economists to measure labor market vitality.
From 2001q1 to 2005q3, epops in both the EU15 and Japan have risen, while the U.S. epop has fallen. In short, in terms of creating enough jobs to keep pace with growth in the working-age population, the United States actually lags both the EU15 and Japan since the beginning of 2001.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060504
Waving the "job creation" banner around as some sort of evidence of how great things are belies the fact that the American economy right now is in bad shape. Making people feel good with statistics is only valid if those statistics actually reflect the reality (or at least an interpretation of it from one side or the other) around you.
Look round you, and open your eyes. That's reality. That's what an informed electorate needs to see. If it doesn't see it, it won't take action to improve it. This concept that all is right with the American economy is delaying action on improving it.
January 18, 2008
Bush Calls for $145 Billion Economic Aid Package
On Thursday, Mr. Bernanke began to deliver his widely anticipated testimony to the House Budget Committee. Despite his comments that a recession could be averted, by the end of the day, the Dow had plunged 307 points; the fall since Jan. 1 is now 9.2 percent. Wall Street started the day with Merrill Lynch reporting that it lost $9.8 billion in the fourth quarter, mainly because of booking $15 billion in losses tied to soured home loans.
Adding to the pessimism were reports that manufacturing activity could be slowing even more than analysts had expected, and that housing starts dropped 14 percent last month and reached their lowest level in 16 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/business/
December 17, 2007
"Today, the President proved just how out of touch he really is with the American people. Middle class families are feeling squeezed as they struggle to pay more for health care, a college education and energy needs. Trusted, proven economic experts like Alan Greenspan have predicted that America is heading for a recession. But instead of taking action, President Bush says the economy is safe and sound. Middle class Americans and economic experts all agree on something the President still refuses to admit: the economy is struggling and families need real help, not more denials."
- House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel
This President has been standing there telling everyone that the economy was strong, and has done so for years. He's bragged about how his tax rebate plans have made it better.
Then suddenly, it's still strong....but the nation is in critical need of a 150 billion dollar "shot in the arm" for it's economy.
It's very much the same thing as the Iraq situation, which was going perfectly - and then wasn't.
That's why being informed about what's going on is so critical to electing leaders. If you just believe their words, and don't examine their actions, and don't examine their impact - you wind up where the USA is right now. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/19/2008 11:34:46 PM | Well MG, have to say, your well versed in Copying and Pasting, infact you should have a doctorate for elaborating on others oppinions, but truth be told, and i guess this sounds a lil JINGOISTIC, but there is no country in the world like the US, even with all the troubles the rest of the world seems happy to point out to us on this sight. As an informed voter, and informed citizen, have too tell you, no matter whose in the White House, whose running the Senate or Congress, or how the economy is going right now at this very moment, or wether you or I agree with the war in Iraq, the truth is WE THE PEOPLE of the United States make this country what it is "the Beacon of Freedom too the world, and if not for our forefathers and thier design of a modern democracy, I'm pretty sure Canadians wouldn't have the rights and freedoms that you do. For your country is a mirror of mine. | |
|
| |
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/20/2008 1:31:32 AM | Since Bush exposed the media last year of only showing the worse of the war, after Saddam was removed from power, the media began showing (successes) of what Bush had been saying about the war.
FOX news and many non-liberals presses had been showing the successes. Pissing off the liberals. Since the war improved drastically, the media hardly shows and prints little of the war. Democrats have a problem about the war in this election year.
Anyone can repeat depressing statements from Democrats on how bad the economy is whenever a Republican is in the White House. The same with articles from liberal papers like the New York Times. They will go after the worst scenarios while living lavish lifestyles due to the market economy. We will be hearing the old "gloom and doom" rhetoric from liberals this year until the elections in November.
America is a superpower because we've got 30 percent of the world's economy and we spend more on defense than the next 10 nations combined. We're the only global power. We're a superpower.
Underestimating the U.S. economy by gloom and doom Democrats is not new. The Japanese economy has not matched U.S. growth rates for at least the last decade. Europe celebrates triumphantly when its growth rate hits 2.5%. Yet the U.S. growth rate has been a steady 3.5 despite the credit crunch. A credit crunch affecting the banks....the rich. As soon as it finally affected the rich, congress and the White House are talking of a stimulus.
Standing alone as a country, California would be the eighth-largest economy in the world and approximately the size of France. Texas' economy is half the size of California's and its GSP compares to that of Canada.
Florida's GSP is approximately the size of Asian tiger South Korea. Illinois' economy is approximately the size of Mexico. Ohio's economy is roughly the size of Australia's. Tennessee's GSP is the size of Saudi Arabia; Nevada, the size of Ireland; Alabama's economy is the size of Iran. And what about the United States' nearest rivals? Germany and China, are smaller than the economies of Texas and California combined. India's $800 billion economy is on par with Florida. Brazil, is comparable to New York. Russia's economy is about the size of New Jersey or Texas.
No country in Europe or Asia will match America's economy and strength. As their economies grow so will America. They have issues that will strangle their growth but that will take a longer post. Just look it up and be informed.
Despite our housing and credit troubles that is also affecting the world, we still are alive and well on planet earth. Once the housing levels to what it is suppose to be, the U.S. growth should be back at 4 and 4.5. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/20/2008 3:46:00 AM |
If that's the case, how will you explain Harper and before him, Mulroney?
Well, if I had to guess I'd say an extra chromosome.
Fact is, western Canada, the real Canada
Why is it more "real" than anywhere else?
has saved Canada from the loonies of Ontario.
Why do you think Ontario is full of loonies?
Are you saying that Albertans for example are uninformed?
What I said you can check for yourself. Is there a reason you can not or will not read?
Canadians from the western provinces share the same values as most Americans and you can't deny this.
Boy you can say that again. The oil comnpanies in Alberta are US owned.
Here's a list of the top 5 oil producing nations and the price of fuel in each.
Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3 - $0.91
2. Canada 178.8 - $3.75 <---- woah
3. Iran 132.5 - ~$0.30
4. Iraq 115.0 $0.05 - $0.15
5. Kuwait 101.5 - $0.78
6. United Arab Emirates - $0.97
7. Venezuela 79.7 - $0.12
If "gouging the shit out of people" is what you mean by a shared US/Albertan value, then yes, I think you're right.
You know in some democratic countries fuel is sold at cost with no corporate profit.
But nobody ever asked Canadians "Do you want to pay $1.50/gal for at-cost fuel or would you rather pay $3.75 and give the profits to American owned oil companies in Alberta" How would you vote on that point? How do you think the rest of Canada wouls vote on that point?
And poverty in Alberta is no lower than anywhere else. Unlike other oil rich contries that have, you know, things like free college right up to the PhD level, no taxes and other minor perks.
So you deny that most of western Europe is not a matriarchy? The world, especially the Muslim world know that women run western Europe. The enormous immorality in the west, high divorce rates, destruction of the family unit and the weak militaries are a major factor from these matriarchy driven countries. There is a social tunnel connecting western Europe and the United States of this bad influence. Whatever trend that occurs in western Europe reaches the United States and Canada within five years.
I'm trying to find something in the above that has any basis in fact. Work with me here. What on earth are you talking about? Can you back any of this up with something with more credability than say, the Natinal Enquirer?
I could
But didn't.
counter with a copy/paste refutation. That's why I didn't even bother reading
Kind of ironic in a discussion about "an informed electorate".
I never do when people think the rest of us can't use our own search engine and do likewise. Tell me what you think and we can exchange views. I'm sure there is someway to hook up our copumters and let them compete in a search engine drag race.
Translation: I can't refute what you said so I'll just pretend I can.
Why don't you just call him a weiner? At least that's amusing.
but there is no country in the world like the US
Well there was, but Hitler was taken down.
I'm pretty sure Canadians wouldn't have the rights and freedoms that you do.
I'm pretty sure you're a dangerous lunatic, but, like you I'm guessing and really
have no idea.
"95% of all POF factsare incorrect or completely fabricated." - Benjamin Franklin
Anyone can repeat depressing statements from Democrats on how bad the economy is whenever a Republican is in the White House.
Ok, go check for yourself then. Look at any enyclopedia you care to. What you'll find is
every stock market crash and bank run in the last 100 years has happened in a republican
administration and not one has ever happened in a democratic administration. Not. One.
You don't need to make stuff up with facts like this.
As for the rest of 6 paragraphs of meaningless drivel about the size of the US economy, I don't see anything subtantive. Yes California has a big economomy. It was a great investment for the Chinese, Japanese and Saudis.
India's $800 billion economy is on par with Florida. Brazil, is comparable to New York. Russia's economy is about the size of New Jersey or Texas.
You should adjust these figues do they're accurate. The US dollar is not stable. If, in 2001 you
had been given one million dollas in US paper money and I'd been given one million dollars in gold and we'd both done nothing with it, then today I'd be able to buy TWO millions dollars of US paper money and you'd still have one million. Now matter how big you think the economy is you have far far less buying power than you did a mere 6 years ago.
Inflation is at an all time 17 year high in the US.
Bush is currently trying to secure $100B from the Saudis who alrady own 7% of the US.
When the Euro came out it was worth less than a dollar US. Now it's $1.50 US.
7 years go a US dollar was worth $1.62 Canadian. Now the Canadian dollar is worth
more than the US dollar.
This is not "liberal propoganda" these are cold hard verifiable facts that the US
economy is in the tank; it's projected to get much worse. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/20/2008 5:32:48 AM |
Since the war improved drastically, the media hardly shows and prints little of the war.
Again, start to research what's actually going on over there from sources independent of your media and politicians. We can agree that the amount of American soldiers dying and wounded has lessened, but that is in no way indicative of "success" in Iraq.
"Success" there is the Iraqi government and people taking over control. That's the only thing that counts, and anything else is smoke and mirrors.
January 15, 2008
Minister Sees Need for U.S. Help in Iraq Until 2018
FORT MONROE, Va. — The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.
Those comments from the minister, Abdul Qadir, were among the most specific public projections of a timeline for the American commitment in Iraq by officials in either Washington or Baghdad. And they suggested a longer commitment than either government had previously indicated.
Pentagon officials expressed no surprise at Mr. Qadir’s projections, which were even less optimistic than those he made last year.
President Bush has never given a date for a military withdrawal from Iraq but has repeatedly said that American forces would stand down as Iraqi forces stand up. Given Mr. Qadir’s assessment of Iraq’s military capabilities on Monday, such a withdrawal appeared to be quite distant, and further away than any American officials have previously stated in public.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/world/middleeast/15military.html?hp
This is from someone who's in the know, an Iraqi government official. If "success" means that the US military is tied down in Iraq (in whatever numbers) for fifteen years after an invasion - then I'd hate to see what failure is.
The military is being bled dry by this war, and the cost to the nation is beyond any logical sense given the toll in lives lost, lives altered, and hundreds of billion spent.
On October 22, the administration submitted a request for a further $45.9 billion in war-related spending for fiscal year 2008. This request is on top of $147 billion already requested for the Department of Defense and $3.6 billion for other agencies for the fiscal year. If appropriated by Congress, the vast majority would be spent on Iraq.
Total spending for the Iraq War would rise to approximately $611 billion.
The Department of Defense portion of this request, for $42.3 billion, was announced by Defense Secretary Gates in September during Senate testimony.
ttp://www.nationalpriorities.org/Publications/
More-War-Funding-Requested-Updated-2.html
Six hundred billion spent , on a country the size of California, and against an insurgency.
As of January 2, 2008
U.S. TROOP LEVELS:
--December 2007: 160,000
--January 2007: 137,000
--U.S. military deaths for 2007: 899, the deadliest year for the U.S. military since the 2003 invasion.
COST:
--Stepped-up military operations are costing about $12 billion a month, with Iraq accounting for $10 billion per month, according to a July 2007 analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
--Total cost to the U.S. government so far is close to $482 billion.
--According to a November 2007 report from the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, total economic costs for the Iraq war are estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. This figure represents the hidden costs of the war beyond the direct budgetary appropriations, including interest costs of borrowing these funds, lost investment, long-term veterans' health care and oil market disruptions.
-- A January 2007 study by Linda Bilmes of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government put the total projected cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan at $350 billion to $700 billion.
OIL PRODUCTION:
--Prewar: 2.58 million barrels per day.
--Dec. 19, 2007: 2.42 million barrels per day.
ELECTRICITY:
--Prewar nationwide: 3,958 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): four to eight.
--Dec. 18, 2007, nationwide: 4,240 megawatts. Hours per day: 11.9.
--Prewar Baghdad: 2,500 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): 16-24.
--Dec. 18, 2007, Baghdad: Megawatts not available. Hours per day: 8.9.
--Note: Current Baghdad megawatt figures are no longer reported by the U.S. State Department's Iraq Weekly Status Report.
EMIGRANTS:
--Prewar: 500,000 Iraqis living abroad.
--Dec. 18, 2007: More than 2.2 million in neighboring countries, mainly Syria and Jordan. The Iraqi Red Crescent, the Red Cross' counterpart in the Muslim world, said in a December 2007 report that more than 25,000 Iraqi refugees returned, mostly from Syria, between Sept. 15 and Nov. 30.
http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2008/01/iraq-war-figures-troop-levels.html
Ten billion dollars a month spent, five years after the invasion, and very little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi people to take control of their destiny.
You can write it off as cut and paste all you want.
That doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Being informed means questioning what you are being told. If you take what you are being given for information , you are being mislead.
If you want America to continue to be a great country, it cannot be bled dry in a war where your country has zero control over the control of the country. No decision made inside America will accomplish that, only ones made in Iraq (by Iraqis) will.
That isn't happening, and that's the problem. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/20/2008 6:14:00 AM |
Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3 - $0.91
2. Canada 178.8 - $3.75 <---- woah
3. Iran 132.5 - ~$0.30
4. Iraq 115.0 $0.05 - $0.15
5. Kuwait 101.5 - $0.78
6. United Arab Emirates - $0.97
7. Venezuela 79.7 - $0.12
RSX, to accurately reflect the price of gas, you should subtract the taxes buried in that price. Taxes are collected by retailers and remitted to the provincial and federal governments, as you surely know, and are used to pay the cost of living in a civilized society. They do not boost the profits of anyone in the industry, upstream or downstream.
When you do that, prices are roughly the same in Europe and Canada and the US. Refining margins differ based on competition and transportation costs vary (remote regions pay more).
Even including taxes, Canada's prices are lower than most of the civilized world. Only The US and oil producing nations have lower prices at the pump than the other OECD nations.
As for American-owned firms, they don't seem all that dominant to me. Shell, Petro-Canada, Ultramar, Husky, Irving, Canadian Tire and Mohawk are all not owned (predominately) by Americans. Individual Americans may own an interest, individually or through a pension or mutual fund, just as a Canadian might own stock in Exxon, but control resides elsewhere.
The only major American player in the Canadian market is Exxon (through its subsidiary Imperial Oil and its Esso brand). Chevron has a small presence out west still, I think, but they are not a national player. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/20/2008 1:22:22 PM | Inflation is at an all time 17 year high in the US.
Bush is currently trying to secure $100B from the Saudis who alrady own 7% of the US.
When the Euro came out it was worth less than a dollar US. Now it's $1.50 US.
7 years go a US dollar was worth $1.62 Canadian. Now the Canadian dollar is worth
more than the US dollar.
This is not "liberal propoganda" these are cold hard verifiable facts that the US
economy is in the tank; it's projected to get much worse.
What you'll find is
every stock market crash and bank run in the last 100 years has happened in a republican
administration and not one has ever happened in a democratic administration. Not. One.
^^
See....this brings out more moronic posts. Similar nonsense comes out of the mouth of Ron Paul, considered a nut case with his uncontrolled motor mouth. Gets a lot of book information that leaves out details, spits it out as if it's Scripture while the world with all it's imperfections and the system of commerce and policies remains the same. America has had trade deficits and debt since the 1960s and that hasn't changed America's status of having 30 percent of the world's economy. Washington watchdogs are not worried but it does make for good elections.
Fact, purchased stocks from any investors, domestic or foreign does not result in ownership of countries. If that was the case, America will be considered the owner of much of the world's countries. An uninformed nut would say the market crash is the direct fault of whoever was President. As if World War Two was Roosevelt's fault since he was President and a Democrat at the time. As we hear of many nut cases stating that the hijacked airliners were Bush's fault since he was President at the time.
Some more facts: America's exports is $1.023 trillion f.o.b. (the next 12 countries combined does not match this amount). Imports is $1.861 trillion f.o.b.
Export commodities are agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 20.0%.
Imports commodities are agricultural products 4.9%, industrial supplies 32.9% (crude oil 8.2%), capital goods 30.4% (computers, telecommunications equipment, motor vehicle parts, office machines, electric power machinery), consumer goods 31.8% (automobiles, clothing, medicines, furniture, toys).
Also, our quarterly growth has been 3.9% all year. While the so-called economic experts predicted 1.5 each quarter. Whenever EU reach a growth of 2.5% they open up champagne bottles and fireworks in celebration with bragging to the world of this small growth.
Much of America's dominance in world finance comes from the dollar's status as international money. The euro, a currency without a country, lacks a long track record of credibility. Thirteen countries in the European Union use the euro. But the commitment of these independent political entities to the euro cannot match the history of America's commitment to the dollar. The euro has clearly made some headway during this period of U.S. balance of payment deficits, but this reflects an evolutionary decline in the dollar's dominance, not a revolutionary regime shift. The euro will not replace the Dollar as the currency of choice for world financial transactions. Not in this century.
The prime suspect in the dropping of the dollar is the trade deficits America has run up, some $5 trillion in total since the passage of NAFTA and the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1994. With the lower dollar, trade deficit will change as often it does and another boom will occur. Hopefully, not in the housing market. There was just too much construction everywhere. There will also be an increase in domestic and foreign investments now. Unfortunately for Canada, there will not be and there will be more layoffs by American car companies in Ontario for instance.
The Chinese, whose currency is tied to the dollar, and Japan will continue. To keep their currencies low against the dollar. For the Asians think long term, and their goals are strategic. As we are doing with the dollar and interest cuts during large deficits and interest hikes during large growth or booms. Canada is incapable of these goals. Canadian dollar did not all suddenly soared in value in just a few years. Nope. The dollar has dropped making it appear as if the Canadian dollar is soaring and Canadians doing cart wheels while we laugh.
Within the United States, $50,000 in Kansas buys you a lot more than it does in Manhattan. But as a measure of wealth in absolute terms, having $50,000 in your bank account is the same no matter where you live in Kansas or Calcutta. California and Texas have a combined population of 60 million, while China's population is 1.3 billion. This has huge implications. Let's say China does become the largest economy in the world in 20 years time. Yet, because of its large population, even if it continues growing at its current pace (a huge assumption), by 2050 it will only be as wealthy as former Communist Hungary is in 2007.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's silence about the latest dollar weakness says a lot about the Bush administration's "strong dollar" policy. U.S. officials recognize that a weaker dollar boosts exports and, in the long run, helps reduce the U.S. trade deficit. Dollar depreciation is the most painless way to redress such imbalances without causing a U.S. major recession. This thinking is panning out just as expected. With exports selling for less overseas, U.S. exports to the EU jumped 23% to $38.8 billion in the last two months of 2007 while U.S. imports from Europe expanded just 3%.
Here's the reality. Currencies come and go in and out of fashion -- largely due to the animal spirits of the time. In the long run, currencies converge towards purchasing power parity. Today, it's more like $1 in the United States buys you what £1 does in London, as an ad for New York City touts in London's Victoria Station. That equation -- which is not a huge exaggeration -- means that London is now twice as expensive as Manhattan. Today, the pound and the euro are as overvalued as they have ever been. U.S. investors -- and European shoppers in Manhattan -- should enjoy the ride while it lasts. It won't last forever. But somehow, despite oil being at $100.00 a barrel and pretty much $90.00 the past few years, one still pays the same for food, housing and gas when it was $20.00 a barrel when Bush took office in 2001.
Could be because the U.S. economy is an open market and not a closed market as in Europe? Could it be that all the social/welfare programs in these socialist countries cannot afford them anymore since that population is aging with a small young population unable to support those aging parasites living off their governments, resulting in extremely high taxes and little growth? Look into the hardships of the average European country with all their runaway inflations and poor housing and lack of jobs before rejoicing at America's troubles. For our troubles, and history shows it, that we do recover, improves for the better and live a lot better and the reason others copy our lifestyles. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/20/2008 2:13:16 PM |
Look into the hardships of the average European country with all their runaway inflations and poor housing and lack of jobs before rejoicing at America's troubles. For our troubles, and history shows it, that we do recover, improves for the better and live a lot better and the reason others copy our lifestyles.
I'd agree at the U.S.'s low -- we live a lot better than many in many other countries, however I would disagree that 'other' countries are copying us [albeit desiring entry in the U.S.]. I see just the opposite in liberalism today versus the liberalism of yesterday.
Recovery for the 'better' as well is questionable as we are a relatively new form of government unlike the U.K.'s system. We have taken various components from the lasting governance in England, but the newer portions seem to be under attack and have been since their inception, imo. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/20/2008 2:43:13 PM |
Washington watchdogs are not worried but it does make for good elections.
Not worried, eh ?
"Passing a new growth package is our most pressing economic priority. ..I am optimistic about our economy, because people like you have shown time and again that Americans are the most industrious, creative, and enterprising people in the world. That is what has made our economy strong. And that is what will make it stronger in the challenging times ahead.
This is a challenging period for our economy, and I know many of you listening are concerned about the future. My advisors and many outside experts expect that our economy will continue to grow over the coming year, but at a slower rate than we have enjoyed for the past few years. And there's a risk of a downturn."
President Bush
Radio address
January 19, 2008
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080119.html
It's strong, and will get even stronger.....but we need 150 BILLION in the next ten minutes, so don't waste anytime......
An uninformed nut would say the market crash is the direct fault of whoever was President. As if World War Two was Roosevelt's fault since he was President and a Democrat at the time. As we hear of many nut cases stating that the hijacked airliners were Bush's fault since he was President at the time.
Funnily enough, the extreme right has turned people like Clinton. Kennedy, and Roosevelt into dreaded ogres that created every bad thing that ever happened on their respective watches.
Now that we have a President who's ship is taking on some serious water.....he's simply a figurehead....doesn't really do anything at all actually....don't even know why we have one, actually....
This President made some huge decisions, like the tax breaks (the one's that were supposed to make America's economy stronger, right ? ) , and the Iraq war. Stop enabling him by finding excuses for his failures....and they most certainly are his.
Also, our quarterly growth has been 3.9% all year. While the so-called economic experts predicted 1.5 each quarter. Whenever EU reach a growth of 2.5% they open up champagne bottles and fireworks in celebration with bragging to the world of this small growth.
Citation please ?
If you want to be informed, you have to back it up with facts.
Economic growth slowed to a near crawl of 1.3 percent in the first three months of 2007, the worst performance in four years. The main culprit: the housing slump.
The fresh reading on gross domestic product, released by the Commerce Department on Friday, was even weaker than the 2.5 percent growth rate logged in the final three months of last year. The new figures underscored just how much momentum the economy has been losing as it copes with the strain of the troubled housing market, which has made some businesses more cautious in their spending.
The first-quarter GDP figure was the weakest since a 1.2 percent pace registered in the opening quarter of 2003. GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States and is considered the best barometer of the country's economic fitness.
"This was tepid activity in the first quarter. The economy was taking a breather," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/27/business/realestate/main2734935.shtml
?source=RSS&attr=_2734935
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- It's much too soon for an official judgment on whether the U.S. economy has fallen into a recession, but early indications show that a recession may have already begun.
Of the five monthly economic indicators used to judge whether the U.S. economy has fallen into a recession, three are declining and one other is flattening out. Three of the five numbers peaked in September. Only one has grown with any vigor over the past few months, but it's starting to look weaker.
Calling a recession is as much art as science.
GDP
The government publishes its GDP figures on a quarterly basis only. The first estimate for the fourth quarter will be released on Jan. 30. Economists are forecasting annualized growth of about 1%.
A top economics firm, Macroeconomics Advisers, publishes a monthly GDP figure that the NBER uses as its fifth monthly indicator. The Macroeconomics Economics GDP is extremely volatile month-to-month. It rose in November, but didn't regain the peak set in September. December's data are not yet available. Varvares, the president of the firm, says the monthly GDP figures are consistent with his firm's forecast for 1.3% annualized growth in the quarterly GDP.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/odds-us-recession/
As Dylan once sang : "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
Sitting around trumpeting your own horn doesn't work , if the walls of Jericho are falling.
If you want the American dream to continue, wake up. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/20/2008 3:14:57 PM | May I return to the original topic, that being an informed voter. I haven't read every single post so I don't know if this site has yet been offered up:
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
Has quiz to "to find out which candidates are most aligned with your views and opinions. . ." as well as a brief outline of the stance for each candidate. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/20/2008 3:24:03 PM | Many of our politicians feel that Iraq is not a major drag on the economy. They think it's a minor drag. I feel they are wrong. Iraq's growth is predicted to be at 7% this year, which is good. It's perfect to have the next president in using this Iraqi economic growth and getting us out of there and fast. That way we have more money at home.
We need to be informed in many subjects. Also in this election, which of the candidates running will follow Bush's pushing of the EU, in admitting Turkey. We need to have a candidate that is willing to get us out of Europe too and admitting Turkey. There are big time problems there and they are getting worse. We should close down all of our bases there, especially the ones in Germany. There is no need for them there anymore. Think of all that money to be saved and used here instead!
It was not the EU that keep Europe secure and at peace. America kept the Red Army from the Elbe and the Rhine. America saved Western Europe from the fate of the Hungarians in 1956, the Czechs in 1968 and the Poles in 1981. America pulled the British and French chestnuts out of the Balkan fires of the 1990s.
German-French amity is a product of statesmanship, but also of the defeat of France in 1940 and the reduction of Germany to rubble by the American, British and Soviet armies in 1944-1945.
Turkey wants in the EU and the members do not. Turkey is the EU's only hope for it's survival. Turkey, an Islamic nation of 70 million, which will soon be more populous than Germany. This raises another issue.
Not one member of the EU has a birthrate among its native born to enable it to survive in its present form.
Europe's welfare states are failing to produce the babies to replace the aging and shrinking population. Thus, virtually all the nations of Western Europe are undergoing invasions, from the Mahgreb, Middle East, South Asia or sub-Saharan Africa.
After a committee led by ex-President Giscard d'Estaing of France wrote a constitution, setting the EU on course toward a "United States of Europe," France and Holland voted it down. Resentment of the "faceless bureaucrats of Brussels," where the European Commission sits, is rampant.
As the votes in Holland and France show, nationalism is tearing at the aging fabric of European unity. Nor is the EU deeply democratic. Giscard is demanding another vote because, as he says, the French "got it wrong." They must vote again and again, 'til they get it right. This is the soft tyranny of an elite that knows better than the people what is best for the people.
The EU is a thing of paper, an intellectual construct. Unlike a nation, it has no heart and no soul. And if and when it passes into history because of some irreconcilable dispute, many may regret it. Few will weep. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:00:47 AM | It's also misleading to refer to this "job creation" streak , when one places the "start" of that period right after a huge post 2000 recessionand 9/11 job loss. If one calculates the jobs lost then, then adds any "gains" since, it's a bit like the analogy of the Titanic hitting the iceberg while it's captain concentrates on the ounces of water bailed versus the thousands of gallons of water pouring in.
And in this wonderfully rosy assessment of how incredibly well the job creation market is doing, let's look at how the average US family is doing under it's magic spell - shall we ? The 2000 recession was a result of the dot com boon, like it or not, it was as natural of a phenomenon as the boon itself. If you're going to throw stones, you need to consider that economic turns don't happen overnight, and if you are going to credit by administration, then you have to consider it was an inherited crisis and the current administration corrected it. (That of course would be an extremely myopic view of the economy and grant far to much credit to both this and the previous administration.)
There are some 9 million sub prime loans in existence, which means 9 million families that did not qualify for home ownership to begin with now have homes. Of those 9 million, only 16% are having financial "issues" which if not corrected will make them exactly what they were before, renters. Before you start bashing this single element of the economy, try to look at the entire picture, not just cut and paste excerpts from whatever "down with America" rag you happen to subscribe to today.
 | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/21/2008 7:20:09 AM | | As I continue to point out to all of you who will post anything on how bad the current administration has "screwed things up," but won't tell us who you're advocating voting for; none of the front-runners of either major party has any real solution to any of the problems you're posting on. Which is the reason that, unless Ron Paul gets the GOP nod, I'm not voting for either of the two major party candidates this year, either. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/21/2008 8:41:06 AM |
The 2000 recession was a result of the dot com boon, like it or not, it was as natural of a phenomenon as the boon itself. If you're going to throw stones, you need to consider that economic turns don't happen overnight, and if you are going to credit by administration, then you have to consider it was an inherited crisis and the current administration corrected it.
My point wasn't that the recession occurred then because of Bush.
The context of my argument is that one cannot see this incredible "boom" in job creation properly, unless you also look at what's essentially involved.
If each job was a dollar, this would be like losing a million dollars in the stock market, and then sitting there talking about how incredible your profits were - as you simply recovered what you lost - while extolling the virtues of said market.
It's not job creation, as much as it is job recovery back to a previous "norm".
It also doesn't take into account the increasing work population, which also weakens it's strength. As people grow old enough to work, more jobs are needed. If one assumes the same numbers of people existed in 2000 as now, then these jobs created would be pluses.
If you don't calculate them, it makes for an uniformed view of what's really going on. People walk around thinking how great everything is...and suddenly find they are standing with their back against the wall.
It's almost Orwellian in it's tone, with a sinking economy that's ....strong...and going to get stronger....if we rush it into emergency in the next ten minutes....
This isn't American bashing, or hatred in any way. I don't wish to see Americans suffer economically, and that gives me no satisfaction in any way. Even looking at it selfishly for a moment, our two economies are greatly tied together , and if yours tanks - ours will follow (at least partially).
I've come to praise Caesar , and not to bury him. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:07:41 AM | Monty, in this post you accept that the recession was not Bush's "fault" yet in other posts you exalt the virtues of Clinton's economic boon as though he had something to do with the advancement of technology that resulted in the dot com boon but nothing to do with the subsequent "bust". He "paid down" the deficit and enjoyed a "budget surplus" by invoking the single highest tax increase in US history and taking credit for something he had absolutely nothing to do with. Despite all that additional revenue, his economic “plan” went belly up within 6 months. Common sense dictates that people spend less when they have less to spend; the notion of raising taxes to stimulate the economy is completely retarded!
PEOPLE drive the economy, their investments and their miserly habits come in cycles and that is what controls the direction of the economy, little else. Granted, the President and the Fed have their hands on the rudder, but those two alone are not nearly strong enough to steer the ship.
80 years ago it was fear from the reckless reporting by the press of the stock market that caused banks to collapse, the stock market actually recovered within a month of Black Friday. The same holds true today, we have "journalists" offering opinions about economic trends when true economists aren't able to predict with any level of certainty what the state of things will be tomorrow. When those not qualified to do anything but report news stop injecting political bias, perhaps then we can enjoy the fruits of our labor instead of having to dig so deep to determine what are facts and the fiction that the mainstream media seems so intent on injecting into every little thing.
| |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:28:22 AM |
What you'll find is every stock market crash and bank run in the last 100 years has happened in a republican administration and not one has ever happened in a democratic administration. Not. One.
See....this brings out more moronic posts. Similar nonsense comes out of the mouth of Ron Paul, considered a nut case with his uncontrolled motor mouth.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" - . Schopenhauer
So check for yourself:
Chronological list of US presidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Lst of stock market crashes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
"A degree of mystery is associated with the 1987 crash"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929
"After the experience of the 1929 crash, stock markets around the world instituted measures to temporarily suspend trading in the event of rapid declines, claiming that they would prevent such panic sales. The one-day crash of Black Monday, October 19, 1987, however, was even more severe than the crash of 1929, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell a full 22.6%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run
You can complain all you want, but that changes nothing. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:34:23 PM | Common sense dictates that people spend less when they have less to spend; the notion of raising taxes to stimulate the economy is completely retarded!
Well, if one takes a look back at the entire model of Reaganomics , you can see that was the start of the era when the aristocracy in America seized control of political power. As I've said before, this creates a siphoning effect where more money and more power get sucked up into the stratosphere in an economic twister.
When that happens, and the aristocracy doesn't fight in wars anymore, guess what ? Wars are a lot easier to start. One can reap the benefits, while others support the true costs.
As Late keeps repeating like a mantra, "Follow the money. " Do that, and start to ask yourself some questions.
If you drop a quarter on the floor a thousand times, and it always lands on heads - somethings wrong.
Cui bono , as the Latin phrase goes....
If tax breaks to rich people actually worked - the American economy under Bush would be a lot better than it is. People would have higher paying jobs, and be better off.
Unlike Clinton, who had a Republican majority in Congress to work against, Bush had a party that was in political control in the legislature and executive. One cannot argue that any economic plan had to be tempered and modified to suit a political opponents demands, during those years.
And the end result was where we are today, after all that "success" in legislation. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/21/2008 9:02:03 PM | Clinton ran in the middle. As soon as he took office, he abandoned the middle road with liberal shift. Perhaps due to his wife's demands. Those first two years had him in the 30% approval rating. He was not going to be re-elected. He was the joke in town. No one admitted voting him.
He then shifted towards the right, working with the Republicans. In fact, he was labeled a thief for taking the Republican ideas. Sure enough, his ratings went up and re-elected. The "Contract with America" under Newt Gingrich was Clinton's greatest asset. He took every Republican policy as his own. Infuriating Republicans.
Obama's recent comments about Reagan and Republicans positive changes of the time infuriated Clinton. Because some liberals have given Clinton all the credit for the economic policies of the 90s. Clinton the usual liar, has lied about Obama's correct statements. Twisting what Obama actually said. Once again, Clinton busted, caught lying.
As for Bush having the congress on his side, Democrats had enough in both houses to stop many of Bush's policies. The same way this past year Republicans have been able to stop the majority Democratic congress from over-riding his vetoes. Democrats just bend over during the past 7 years and the reason they are also in 30% approval rating. And that's my friend is the difference between living here, voting in general elections, voting in local elections, being an American and not a foreigner assuming knowing American politics from press articles written by liberal journalists.
Being informed and reminded of what actually happened does indeed help in this election. Another point to remember is right before our eyes, Congress gave Bush the green light for both wars. All the talk about a "no more Vietnam" in years went down the tube. There was no need to overthrow the Taliban. We could have gone in there, get Osama without overthrowing the Taliban. Same thing in Iraq. Remember, it was Clinton that began the weapons of mass destruction. Albright was beating that drum the whole tenure of that Administration.
Democrats could have stop Bush in both these instances. They had the votes and even a large majority of votes with moderate Republicans, but they bent over under their desks. Another area where the Democrats could have stopped Bush was when the very first day he took office in 2001, he signed the Credit Card initiative. That gave credit cards companies the right to increase interest rates at very high rates. And, mind you, the right to tell other card companies a person failed to make a payment thereby, enabling all other cards to increase interest rates. I knew that would bite the banks in the ass and sure it has. | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:51:16 PM | ^^^ so true!
his isn't American bashing, or hatred in any way. I don't wish to see Americans suffer economically, and that gives me no satisfaction in any way. Even looking at it selfishly for a moment, our two economies are greatly tied together , and if yours tanks - ours will follow (at least partially).
^^^^^^
When the U.S. sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. But for Canada, it's more like pneumonia. The London stockmarket was in free fall today plummeting 5.5 per cent, the biggest fall since 9/11 terror attacks. The fall came as Asian markets tumbled overnight.
A 2.3% growth rate in the United States counts as a "growth recession," in Europe it's a reason to throw a party.
During the last few weeks, the British Pound has fallen like a warm knife through butter. Not even the Bank of England's decision to keep U.K. interest rates on hold at 5.5% last week did much to steady its free fall. It's taken as gospel that Britain's central bank will be forced to lower its key interest rate to spur growth as soon as next month. The United Kingdom's current account deficit, at 5.7% of GDP in the third quarter of 2007, also was bigger than that of the United States.
Some experts estimate that the United Kingdom's true current account deficit actually is closer to 7% of GDP. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the British Pound's drop was inevitable. It was (and probably still is) the most overvalued currency in the world. As any of you who have traveled to London in the past few years can confirm, $1.96 buys far more in the United States than 1 pound does in the United Kingdom. The British Pound Sterling should trade at around $1.64 to the dollar, just about the average dollar exchange rate since 1985. French investment bank BNP Paribas points out that British Pound Sterling today still is more overvalued.
The stimulus package brought up in Washington is for companies. To increase consumer spending. As I mentioned before, it's for the rich. The last time such a package came about was in December of 2001. Tax rebates went into savings and not into consumer spending. A real stimulus package would have government works projects, reduction in foreign aid and actual tax reductions for everybody, not just for the wealthy. For that to happen, the country would have to actually tank, as it did in the 1930s. If people vote for the person bragging that he or she is for this current stimulus package, these voters are deceived.
This thread is about being informed and one needs to remember that Democrats and liberals will be preaching gloom and doom this year. That kind of politicking may fog up the facts that may lead to less informed voters. Already the number issue in this election year is the economy and not the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's already working. Iraq is at the bottom of the list. Someone asked that candidates are not being picked in this thread. So far, I prefer Mitt Romney for many reasons.
One particular reason is due to the fact that the liberals are negative towards him. They don't like Mitt. They love McCain, he has a history of sharing his bed with them and they also love Huckabee despite his trashing homos and being a Baptist minister. But, Romney, they fear. They constantly attack his faith and belittle his good record as governor. One clue that Romney is our strongest candidate is the fact that Democrats keep viciously attacking him while expressing their deep respect for Mike Huckabee and John McCain. The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide.
For example, New York Times columnist Frank Rich is always negative at Romney. But always positive over Huckabee. Even after it came to light that Huckabee had called homosexuality an "abomination." Normally, any aspersions on sodomy or any favorable mentions of Christianity would lead to at least a dozen hysterical columns by Frank Rich. CNN and NBC always have the need to label Mitt the Mormon. Huckabee's Christianity doesn't bother Frank Rich and the MSM. Sen. Harry Reid is a Mormon. I bet no one knew this. Romney most likely may turn out to be a moderate Republican. It's also possible that Romney will turn out to be a conservative Republican, at least more conservative than he was as governor of Massachusetts. Of the top five Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn't dumped his first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) except Huckabee. And unlike Huckabee, Romney doesn't have a son who hanged a dog at summer camp. So there won't be any intern issues and there won't be any Billy Carter issues.
It seems that anytime financial markets have a bad week or two, the global financial press readily hitches itself to the doomsday bandwagon by cheerfully predicting the demise of the U.S. economy. In the 1970s, liberals grew up with two myths. First, that the Soviet Union would dominate the U.S. militarily and second, that the Japanese would dominate the U.S. economically. With the Soviet Union erased from the map, and the Japanese stock market below levels it traded at 17 years ago, both fears seem almost quaint. Yet today, the conventional wisdom that Brazil, Russia, India, and China, the BRIC countries, are set to dominate the United States is just as prevalent.
In the midst of a housing collapse and credit crunch, the impending doom of the U.S. economy is taken as gospel. But look behind the headlines, and the numbers tell a different story. The U.S. economy grew by 3.9% in the credit turmoil-ridden third quarter, following a 3.1% jump in the second quarter. That means that the United States added the equivalent of a new Saudi Arabia to its economy in 6 months. And the fact that the World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. economy the most competitive economy recently, got little press. And even when it did, the #1 ranking of the United States was explained away as a statistical mirage.
This is not to say that the U.S. economy is in ship shape. But with all of the talk about China and India dominating our economic futures, it's worth reminding ourselves where these new economic challengers stand in comparison to the United States today. Despite the high economic growth rates of developing nations, the United States is by far the world's wealthiest nation as measured by GDP, the broadest measure of economic wealth. And the rest of the world isn't even close.
This year, U.S. GDP is projected to be $13.22 trillion. That means that the U.S. economy is as large as the next four-largest economies in the world, Japan, Germany, China, and the United Kingdom combined. And don't forget, Japan is still the world's second-largest economy. While China and India grab the headlines, it's easy to forget that Japan's economy in real terms is about three times the size of China and almost about eight times the size of India. Japan we are very proud of, for we love Japan and she loves us. We have a very close relationship. Oh yeah, North Carolina's economy is just above Sweden and South Carolina GDP is the same as Indonesia.
Also next door, Georgia's economy is equal to Switzerland and my home state of Oregon is equal to Israel's economy. My point is that while our so-called allies claim to like us, they actually hate us despite being dependant on our economy and democracy. Their constant negativity of the United States is reciprocal. Which has brought us closer to China the past 25 years. In this area, I agree with Ron Paul. We should abandon our so-called allies, for it will save us tons of treasure and military hardware, not to mention American lives, even though as soldiers, some of us were, train for wars. | |
|
| Busted
Posted: 1/22/2008 2:01:27 AM | In the midst of a housing collapse and credit crunch, the impending doom of the U.S. economy is taken as gospel
Ulli...The Wall Street Bully — insights into no load mutual ...
“In the midst of a housing collapse and credit crunch, the impending doom of the U.S. economy is taken as gospel. But look behind the headlines, ...
thewallstreetbully.blogspot.com/ 2008/01/us-vs-rest-of-world.html - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
Davos Conversation » Compare your country to USA
The U.S. Economic Map: Size Matters In the midst of a housing collapse and credit crunch, the impending doom of the U.S. economy is taken as gospel. ...
davosconversation.org/?p=2044 - 5k - Cached - Similar pages
GunThing Forum | The US Economic Map: Size Matters
In the midst of a housing collapse and over played credit crunch, the impending doom of the US, as constantly and pompously wagged about by the liberal ...
www.gunthing.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/5632/ - 87k - Cached - Similar pages
It seems that anytime financial markets have a bad week or two, the global financial press readily hitches itself to the
"The U.S. Economic Map Vs. The World The Global Guru -
It seems that anytime financial markets have a bad week or two, the global financial press readily hitches itself to the doomsday bandwagon by cheerfully ...
www.theglobalguru.com/article. php?id=171&offer=GURU001 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages"
Nice plagiarism and copyright theft.
| |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/22/2008 4:33:55 AM | heres what scares me,socialism,and im sorry but the demacratic party is leaning way to far left.ive listened to the debates and read about what they wanna do and im telling you its socialism and it doesnt work,history proves it.kinda funny the rest of the world is figuring that out and were going headlong into it.canada voted in a conservative pres,as did germany,and yes,even freakin frace did!socialism doesnt work,heres a perfect example of how socialism is out of control in our country,california wants to pass into law the everyones thermastat has to have an fm radio reciever so the government can control energy.yes they wanna control the heating and cooling in your own freakin house.is there a certain amount of times i can flush my toilet?screw it lets do socialism,ill just sit on my ass and let the government do everything for me,i mean food is a basic human right isnt it?what is wrong with these ppl,GET THE HELL OUT OF MY HOUSE,y'know,wtf? | |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/22/2008 5:55:15 AM | Monty, Monty, Monty....
Well, if one takes a look back at the entire model of Reaganomics , you can see that was the start of the era when the aristocracy in America seized control of political power. As I've said before, this creates a siphoning effect where more money and more power get sucked up into the stratosphere in an economic twister. I have no idea where you get your information about Reagan.... To begin with, Carter had systematically dismantled the military by continued slashing of the budget, had he been re-elected, we would have been throwing rocks as defense of Soviet Missiles to this day. We were knee deep in a post war recession, with double digit inflation, double digit prime interest rates, gas rationing, high unemployment and were the laughing stock of the world. I hardly equate aristocracy with Reagan, who was born in an apartment over a bank in rural Illinois, particularly when you consider he replaced the son of a wealthy plantation owner. If you're referring to the application of Reaganomics, reducing unemployment, which was at a rate that had only been seen during the great depression, reducing inflation, cutting taxes across the board, reducing domestic spending specifically on freebies seems to have worked.
When that happens, and the aristocracy doesn't fight in wars anymore, guess what ? Wars are a lot easier to start. One can reap the benefits, while others support the true costs. Reaping the benefits, like Johnson and Brown & Root? Check your history a little closer, both Reagan and Bush were active duty during WWII. Bush saw combat, Reagan was kept stateside on limited duty due to severe nearsightedness. That guy that succeeded them did a little draft dodging and spent his time in England not inhaling….
If tax breaks to rich people actually worked - the American economy under Bush would be a lot better than it is. People would have higher paying jobs, and be better off. Low unemployment, more home owners, more jobs than any preceding president and still you think the economy is bad? I don't know of anyone who has had a pay cut since Bush took office, what I do remember is my paycheck suddenly being 18% smaller than the week before when Clinton was in office.
Unlike Clinton, who had a Republican majority in Congress to work against, Bush had a party that was in political control in the legislature and executive. One cannot argue that any economic plan had to be tempered and modified to suit a political opponents demands, during those years. You couldn't be more wrong... at no time under Reagan or GHW Bush did Republicans hold both the house and the senate. In fact, over the past almost 50 years, there has been a balance of control in the legislature with the exception of Clinton having a Democratic Congress during the first two years of his administration, and Bush having one under the first Passage of things such as the Brady Bill, NAFTA, don't ask don't tell, the federal lawsuit brought by Democrats to block Congressional term limits, and other unpopular legislation, the Democrats lost control of both the House and the Senate in the 104th Congress in 1995, three years into Clintons 1st administration. An election where the sitting Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, 3rd in line of succession was unseated in the general election. An event which hadn’t occurred in over 130 years.
FYI
From 1979 through 1981, Democrats held a wide majority in both the House and Senate.
From 1981 through 1987, Democrats held a wide majority in the Senate.
From 1987-1995 Democrats held a wide majority in both the House and Senate.
From 1995-2007 Republicans held a narrow majority in both the House and Senate.
Reagan's term was 1981-1989 Never had Republican Majority
GHW Bush's term was 1989-1993 Democratic Majority in House & Senate
Clinton's term was 1993-2001 Democratic Majority from 1993-1995
GW Bush's term was 2001- present Republican Majority 2001-2007
| |
|
| Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 1/22/2008 2:01:11 PM | Tim , Tim , Tim,
>Monty, Monty, Monty....
Well, if one takes a look back at the entire model of Reaganomics , you can see that was the start of the era when the aristocracy in America seized control of political power. As I've said before, this creates a siphoning effect where more money and more power get sucked up into the stratosphere in an economic twister.
I have no idea where you get your information about Reagan.... If you're referring to the application of Reaganomics, reducing unemployment, which was at a rate that had only been seen during the great depression, reducing inflation, cutting taxes across the board, reducing domestic spending specifically on freebies seems to have worked.
I'm not saying Reagan was an aristocrat. What I'm saying is that his economic policies helped to start to unbalance the way money was distributed across the population, weighing more towards the upper class - specifically the super rich (ie aristocracy). Whatever background he had, or motivation, is secondary to that fact.
Money created power, which created the chance for more money to be made.
Inequality (the gap between rich and poor) and polarization (decline in the middle class) of family disposable incomes in Canada has remained roughly stable since the mid 1970s, while it has increased in the United States, more so since the mid 1980s.
However, between 1985 and 1997, these trends were completely reversed in Canada, where the earnings gap narrowed and polarization declined. In the United States, earnings inequality continued to increase, but polarization declined, signaling a reversal of the "disappearing middle-class jobs" phenomenon first noted over a decade
ago.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/000728/d000728a.htm
As top corporations became more concentrated, CEO pay grew disproportionately, aided by favorable tax legislation. Reagan's Economic Recovery Act of 1981 greatly reduced top rate of personal tax while extending corporate tax write-offs and easing depreciation rules; further tax reductions followed in 1986. Income inequality grew strongly under Reagan and Bush I, a trend the Clinton years did little to reverse. Indeed, the 1997 'Taxpayer Relief Act' produced another bonanza for the wealthy: it is estimated for every $1 in tax savings going to the bottom 80%, the top 1% of income earners saved over $1000 in tax. While swathes of unionized skilled workers lost their jobs as traditional industries disappeared, the remuneration of top CEOs grew. As the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, William J McDonough, noted in a speech to mark the first anniversary of 9/11, in 1980 America's top executives on average earned about 40 times as much as the average worker; by 2000 the ratio was 400:1, a jump impossible to explain by corporate performance.
The distribution of income in the US today is the least egalitarian of any of the major industrialized countries. This was not always true. The policies introduced under Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s improved the lot of the poor, the Second World War brought full employment and the post-war period saw further strides in reducing the extreme inequalities that characterized US capitalism in the early 20th century. However, over the past three decades the distribution of household income in the US has become as unequal as it was before the Great Depression. In broad-brush terms, this shift is explained by the fact that the rich---the very top percentiles of the household income distribution--- have become very much richer than before. By contrast, income has stagnated for the vast majority of Americans while the bottom twenty percent (the lowest quintile) is actually worse off than in 1970.
http://prorev.com/2007/09/reagan-bush-clinton-bush-years.html
If the aristocracy controls both parties through financial donations and lobbying, guess where the money is going to go ? That's tight, upwards....
More money tends to make some people a lot more greedy.
Look at the "death tax" battle, and how those with the most to gain from it's repeal put on a cunning battle to make all Americans think THEY were getting TAXED on DEATH !
The real case was that families like the Waltons (who were behind the battle) stood to make a KILLING if it was ...um....killed.
Estate Tax Background
• Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
• In 2001, the standard exemption for the estate tax was $675,000 per individual, the minimum tax rate was 37% and the maximum tax rate was 60%
• In 2009, the standard exemption will be $3,500,000 per individual, and the tax rate will be 45% across the board.
• In 2010, the estate tax will be repealed for one year
• In 2011 and onwards, the standard exemption will be $1,000,000 per individual, the minimum tax rate will be 41% and the maximum tax rate will be 55%
[Public Citizen, “Spending Millions to Save Billions,” April 2006]
Walton Family Empire Worth Around $80 Billion. According to the Forbes list of America’s Richest Billionaires, Helen Walton (founder Sam Walton’s widow), her three surviving children, and the widow of son John Walton are worth a total $78.9 billion.
[http://www.forbes.com]
Walton Family Owns 39% of Wal-Mart, Inc., Deferred Estate Tax Payment at Sam Walton’s Death. “Sam Walton’s widow, Helen, inherited his shares after his 1992 death; she now owns about 8% of the company. She is 85 and has not fully recovered from an automobile accident five years ago.
Overall, Helen, daughter Alice, and sons Jim, John and Rob, own nearly 40% of Wal-Mart. The children got their shares when the company started, allowing the family to defer billions in estate taxes at Walton’s death.”
[USA Today, 4/6/05, emphasis added]
Estate Tax Could Cost Waltons $8.7 Billion and Reduce Family Control of Wal-Mart. A report on Wal-Mart and Walton family charitable donations by the National Council for Responsive Philanthropyestimated that the death of Helen Walton would result in an estate tax bill of around $8.7 billion. “This payment and the resulting sale of Wal-Mart stock would reduce the family’s control over the company.”
[National Council for Responsive Philanthropy, “The Waltons and Wal-Mart: Self-Interested Philanthropy, September 2005]
Walton Family Earned Almost $240 Million in Dividend Tax Cuts in 2005
Alone. In 2003 Bush enacted a dividend tax cut which resulted in the Walton family saving $239 million in taxes in 2005 alone.
[Wal-Mart 10-K Filing/Annual Report, 3/31/05, (Internal Calculation)]
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Vq9
KMLxEK5EJ:walmartwatch.com/img/documents/WMT_Estate_Tax.pdf+
Death+tax+%2B+waltons&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca
How many Americans leave an estate worth more than 3,500,000 at their time of death ?
Estate taxes imply being quite rich, but death taxes apply to all.
Change the name, and change the game.
This means those same aristocrats will transfer power across generations, as the money is handed over , managed, and grows even larger.
When that happens, and the aristocracy doesn't fight in wars anymore, guess what ? Wars are a lot easier to start. One can reap the benefits, while others support the true costs.
Reaping the benefits, like Johnson and Brown & Root? Check your history a little closer, both Reagan and Bush were active duty during WWII. Bush saw combat, Reagan was kept stateside on limited duty due to severe nearsightedness. That guy that succeeded them did a little draft dodging and spent his time in England not inhaling….
Again , that was the "old school" aristocracy. This was the case up until perhaps Korea. After that , with a few notable exceptions (like Kerry, McCain, Gore , and John Thomas Walton ) the family members of the rich and powerful didn't go into combat zones.
The only aristocrat that perhaps will ever die on this war on terror, in combat, was Pat Tillman.
If tax breaks to rich people actually worked - the American economy under Bush would be a lot better than it is. People would have higher paying jobs, and be better off.
Low unemployment, more home owners, more jobs than any preceding president and still you think the economy is bad? I don't know of anyone who has had a pay cut since Bush took office, what I do remember is my paycheck suddenly being 18% smaller than the week before when Clinton was in office.
Unlike Clinton, who had a Republican majority in Congress to work against, Bush had a party that was in political control in the legislature and executive. One cannot argue that any economic plan had to be tempered and modified to suit a political opponents demands, during those years.
You couldn't be more wrong... at no time under Reagan or GHW Bush did Republicans hold both the house and the senate.
My reference was to Bush Jr.
[quote[Clinton's term was 1993-2001 Democratic Majority from 1993-1995
GW Bush's term was 2001- present Republican Majority 2001-2007
That's quite a long time to implement all of the things you want to accomplish, without any real opposition. That's two years for Clinton, and six for Bush (roughly). | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
