|
|
|
|
|
| |
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 2:16:27 AM | Uhhh.........
Have you looked at how the American Dollar is doing?
Or are you aware of how much Gas costs?
Or maybe you've forgotten the dozens of multi-billion dollar companies that have collapsed in the past few years?
I take it you haven't taken a serious look at the ecconmy of the western society- its a roller coaster..... | |
|
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 5:28:29 AM | | Oh it's great. The average income in my part of the state is below the poverty line. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Interest rates rise, the deficit increases, more children live in poverty, the education system ranks our state near the bottom. Tax cuts for the wealthy and multinational companies have broken the backs of many of the social programs designed to help the working poor. Outsourcing is costing us jobs and companies can no longer compete against cheap overseas labor. As always our system benefits the few and punishes the many. | |
|
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 7:02:57 AM |
Oh it's great. The average income in my part of the state is below the poverty line. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Interest rates rise, the deficit increases, more children live in poverty, the education system ranks our state near the bottom. Tax cuts for the wealthy and multinational companies have broken the backs of many of the social programs designed to help the working poor. Outsourcing is costing us jobs and companies can no longer compete against cheap overseas labor. As always our system benefits the few and punishes the many.
This is pretty much where Canada is/heading now that we have a bush-a-like in.! woot! fun times!
Yeah! it is G-R-E-A-T! | |
|
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 7:33:54 AM | [quotee]
If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Answer: the economy's not doing so good.
Take the measure (in dollars) of economic growth in EACH year he's been president; THEN subtract the amount borrowed (deficit) to pay the federal budget for that year; THEN divide it by the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and you'll see the economy has barely grown. We've had less than 2.5% economic growth EACH AND EVERY YEAR he's been in office. 3% to 5% is considered good. 5%+ is a little inflationary. 6% is definitely an inflated economy.
Let's do that:
Here's the money the Bush administration has borrowed during it's last 6 budgets, from:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html
2002 –317,417
2003 –538,418
2004 –567,961
2005 –493,611
2006 –602,141
2007 –543,419
Here's the amount gdp for 2002, 2003 and 2004... GDP takes awhile to figure because it takes statistics gathered from every part of the domestic economy to figure the total amount spent on good and services during that year:
from: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104575.html
2002: $10,480.8
2003: $10,987.9
2004: $11,734.3
$10,987.9 - 10,480.8= -$507.10
507.10/10,480.8= 5%... and this is the figure used for the GDP.
HOWEVER..
$507.10- $538.4 (the amount borrowed in 2003, as shown above)=$-31.3 billion
That is to say that year was actually a RECESSION.
Do it with the other fiscal years and you'll find the same story; not necessarily a recession, but less than 2.5% economic growth..
If that money, which equals (almost to the penny) the amount being given out in "tax cuts" and most of which is being paid out to the top 5% of income earners, only to reinvest in big corporations that swallow up little ones and DON'T stimulate the economy, was not being thrown out the back door of the treasury, we'd be doing much better.
Face it.
The GDP doesn't figure the amount of indebtedness in. We are currently paying between 12 and 13% of our yearly tax dollars toward financing (paying interest) on the national debt, and Bush keeps adding 300-500 billion (.3 to .5 TRILLION) dollars onto that figure every year.
How is that "doing good"? | |
|
| |
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 9:18:54 AM | You really think the economy's doing well ?
Seriously ?
Have you seen how much the country, and many people, are in DEBT ?
U.S. Economy: Trade Deficit Increases to a Record (Update2)
By Joe Richter
Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. trade deficit unexpectedly surged to a record in July as an increase in imports signaled American consumers will keep the economy expanding.
Imports exceeded exports by $68 billion, the Commerce Department said in Washington, up from $64.8 billion in June. The gap exceeded estimates by all but one of the 69 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News before the report.
A growing appetite for Japanese electronics and clothing from China suggests American consumers are still spending even as the housing market sags, and that the U.S. economy needn't rely on foreign demand to fuel the expansion. Exports dropped 1 percent in July, partly because of a fall in aircraft sales.
``We have a slower growing economy, but it's still reasonably healthy and still drawing in a lot of imports,'' said Ethan Harris, chief U.S. economist at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in New York. ``While the U.S. economy has slowed, it hasn't cratered.''
The July deficit compares with the $65.5 billion median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Forecasts ranged from $60.5 billion to $70 billion.
The deficit adjusted for changes in prices, figures the government uses in its calculation of gross domestic product, widened in July to $59.1 billion, the highest since January. The increase suggests the nation's worsening trade balance will restrain economic growth this quarter.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a.e5AttfjGL0&refer=us
New Survey Report Reveals Truth Behind Credit Card Debt Explosion in the United States
Citing Skyrocketing Costs, Dwindling Savings and Stagnant Wages, More American Families Are Turning To Credit Cards As Their Financial Safety Net
Washington, DC--American families are turning to credit cards to make ends meet in an increasingly volatile economy, according to The Plastic Safety Net: The Reality Behind Credit Card Debt in America, a new report released today by Demos and Center for Responsible Lending. Released just five days before the new bankruptcy law takes effect and effectively shuts the door on financial recovery for millions, The Plastic Safety Net presents new findings from a national survey on credit card debt among low- and middle-income households--those whose incomes fell between 50 percent and 120 percent of local median income. The survey provides new information about why households are in credit card debt, how long they have carried their debt and the impact this debt has had on their economic security.
Research shows that credit card debt in America nearly tripled in the 1990s and has increased 31 percent since 2000. Americans now owe some $800 billion in credit card debt. In addition, owing largely to job instability and medical costs, bankruptcies rose from 616,000 in 1989 to over 1.8 million in 2004.
http://www.demos.org/page382.cfm
Published Wednesday, Sep 13, 2006
STOCKTON - The U.S. economy is turning sluggish, and there's a risk it could hit the skids because of high energy prices and the downturn in housing, according to the Business Forecasting Center at University of the Pacific.
Still, the forecast released Tuesday predicts a relatively soft landing for the nation, with overall economic growth, as measured by the gross domestic product, dropping to 2.3 percent in 2007 before recovering to around the 3 percent level in 2008.
That's a significant change from the past five years when GDP growth averaged about 3.5 percent per year, said Chuck Williams, dean of Pacific's Eberhardt School of Business.
::: Advertisement :::
"Two percent GDP growth would be quite slow on average," he said Tuesday. But it's far from a dive into recession.
"That's what Chairman (Ben) Bernanke is hoping for," Williams added, referring to the Federal Reserve chief.
It won't be easy for the Fed to strike the right balance, however.
"The U.S. economy is clearly slowing, higher energy costs and higher interest rates are squeezing household budgets and slowing consumer spending," Williams said. "However, a decline in productivity growth and rising labor costs are indications that the threat from inflation has not subsided. The Fed is being pulled in both directions; further interest rate hikes could stamp out inflation but threaten to choke off economic growth."
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060913/MONEY/609130301 | |
|
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 10:18:23 AM | That's the idea, MG: We've still got the spending money we had... but it's being borrowed in "tax cuts" which all eventually have to be paid back according to the terms of the bonds they were borrowed against.
Deficits in the yearly budget are DEBTS, not tax cuts.
Remember that when you vote. | |
|
| |
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 10:56:21 AM | | I can understand many of the posts here about the economy not being very good...I see people everyday who struggle to make ends meet. I have been VERY fortunate in making a living. I started with a company 5 years ago..making about $23,000 per year...after 5 years I am now over $63,000. I will tell you this much...thats not alot of money! I cant see how folks making $5-10 bucks an hour make it... | |
|
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 11:12:05 AM | | Destroying international confidence in the US economy does have the effect of driving the dollar down. That makes your goods cheaper around the world and imports more expensive. There is bound to be a boost to the domestic economy. But it's a pretty strange way to improve things. And you've got to go through an awful lot of pain before you get there. When every other country has their fiscal house in order, running massive deficits is short term gain for long term pain. | |
|
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 12:49:08 PM | It’s called the “fiat dollar” and we once new how many “fiat dollars” were printed until good old George put a stopped reporting it. (On March 23, 2006 the USA ceased publication of the M3 monetary aggregate.) So now no-one can measure how much paper money is being printed by the US. (missed that didn't ya? no news is American news)
Bush is doing such a good job of lying that some Americans even think their economy is doing great.
You have gone form the Ford Economy to the Walmart Economy and think you arte doing better.
Ford economy: one parent working, one at home with the kids with a house in the suburbs with health benefits and a retirement package, a cottage a boat and all the toys.
Walmart economy: both parents now have to work two part time jobs. And of course no benefits, no retirement, no home owners. But they have debt to pay for the medical bills.
This is what’s left after everything has been outsourced at slave wages to poor countries.
But hey, they rich get richer. | |
|
| Conductor:
Posted: 9/13/2006 1:19:41 PM | Thanks for trying to set Rome straight, but do you seriously believe he's going to think about what you wrote?
Just about all of us are driving nice cars
But both GM & Ford are having to cut jobs like crazy and are losing money and Chrysler needed Daimler to bail them out
and living in expensive houses
Yup, 'cept for the - how many? - homeless people? Did you notice the current rate of repossessed homes? | |
|
| Conductor:
Posted: 9/13/2006 2:08:20 PM | This is pretty much where Canada is/heading now that we have a bush-a-like in.! woot! fun times!
Yeah! it is G-R-E-A-T!
Can you provide proof of this?
I would suggest Harper's policies are actually going to help our economy. (like giving tax dollars back)
I would also suggest, in their last budget, they actually increased spending on social issues.(ex; the money being given to parents with children under six for daycare)
Using regurgitated propaganda from the left is not making any sort of valid point.
O/T; not sure where you are getting your information from, but America's economy is hardly doing well. | |
|
| Conductor:
Posted: 9/13/2006 3:58:22 PM | I wouldn brag about the Harper government so quickly.
A) the so called tax cut is and always was a sham. A 1% point reduction in the HST does little to stimulate and economy, you save $1 for every $100 spent,
B) Along with the tax "reduction" the tax rate for the lowest bracket was increased. So kiss that $1 and some more good-bye through income tax.
C) the $100 a month for day care is nothing more than a token gesture for parents. Any parent can tell you that a $100 a month will do little to help.
D) the day-care "suppliment" is subject to clawbacks such as being considered as taxable income. | |
|
| Conductor:
Posted: 9/13/2006 3:58:52 PM | | pardon the spelling errors :P | |
|
| Conductor:
Posted: 9/13/2006 4:03:33 PM | A lot of folks driving nicer cars is a more recent addition of the American landscape than how it used to be ... it actually used to be fairly hard to qualify for financing a new car loan and required placing some 'collateral' within a bankers control ... that is until the auto industry figured out to profit from selling both the car and financing the loan ... now it seems like anyone with a J-O-B can get a car loan without having any collateral beyond the car itself. This might seem like a better system, perhaps it is ... but the liberal terms offered in auto finance stretches out such debt to extend beyond the usefulness or value of the car in question for many consumers.
Real estate is another story however and the signs are that the bubble will burst soon ... when lower interest rates allowed more folks into the buyers market ... the inflated value of property reached a parity to compensate for the cheaper finance rates ... the end result being folks bought at inflated rates ... tax accessements reflected the enhanced value ... so that now as the bubble bursts ... many folks will now carry a loan (at a prohibitively higher rate of interest) than what the property is actually worth.
Everybody wins, the developers, the municipalities, the banks, the realators ... everybody except the homeowner in such straits. The potential beneficiaries are the same folks with the addition of those who have sufficient liquid capital that will be able to scoop up the foreclosures at the deflated firesale prices.
In support of what others have posted what appears to be happening is that credit has propped up the Bush economy ... temporary gain at longterm pain ... smoke and mirrors.
********************************************
As Bush Regime Faces Twilight Slide, How Much Havoc Can Paulson Wreak?
By JAMES PETRAS
Though all eyes are fixed on the unfolding crises in the Middle East, new offensives looms on other fronts. Three areas are targeted by the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies:
A renewed effort to privatize social security; reduce social programs such as Medicare and Medicaid while increasing individual payments; further reduce taxes on corporations and the rich and state regulatory controls over corporations, especially the Sarbanes-Oxley Law, in order to ease corporate global financial transactions, at the risk of small investors.
A push by US multinational corporations to finance their exploitation and takeovers of ‘emerging countries’ by capturing local savings.
A major effort to lower trade and investment barriers – such as local subsidies and tariffs – for US industrial, financial and other service corporations while retaining a privileged place for heavily subsidized US agro-exporters and protected US agro businesses in the domestic market.
The inter-relation of economic empire building – both in terms of control over overseas markets and enterprises – is closely linked to domestic policies. Tax cuts for corporations and the rich increase capital for export; privatized social security adds billions in profits for Wall Street investment banks; cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and increased fees and co-payments, provide greater funds to pay wealthy bondholders. The empire grows while the domestic social economy is impoverished.
"Empire Building via Cuts in Entitlement Benefits"
The appointment of Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, the leading Wall Street investment bank, to head the US Treasury Department was a move toward re-opening Wall Street’s battle to privatize the trillion dollar Social Security program.
With Paulson leading the cheering section, Congress ended its summer session by eliminating the estate tax (inheritance tax) for all but the wealthiest taxpayers, and extended several business tax breaks (Financial Times August 2, 2006). Clearly the Treasury Secretary is party to the strategy of forcing a budgetary crisis by reducing the taxes on the rich and then blaming the costs of the social security and medical programs upon which the middle and working class depend.
In a plea to Congress, consistent with his Wall Street loyalties, Paulson demanded that all the public social programs be ‘reformed’ to avoid a looming deficit, while defending the elimination of inheritance taxes for multi-millionaires and billionaires. Paulson emphasized that reviving Bush’s failed effort to privatize social security and reduce Medicare and Medicaid “would be his first priority”, (Financial Times August 2, 2006 p1). With typical aplomb, Paulson urged Congress to “rise above partisan differences” by handing over the social security payments to Wall Street investment houses.
In an even more bizarre move, Paulson justified his tax cuts for the rich and his increase in individual payments for retirees and poor as a problem of ‘demographics”. “Demographics don’t lie and demographics aren’t partisan. If left unchecked, these programs would significantly impair our economic flexibility and erode out competitiveness” (FT August 2, 2006).
The problem is not ‘demographic’ – an aging problem – but the large-scale, long-term tax cuts which have reduced government revenue and the Government’s use of Social Security contributions to fund current deficits incurred because of the decline in inheritance, high income, capital gains and other progressive taxes. Paulson’s speech at Columbia University in early August put the privatization of Social Security “firmly back on the agenda”, claiming he had Bush’s full backing.
His move to ‘reform’ entitlement payments to the poor and elderly to provide flexibility and competitiveness for big business means essentially to lower Government outlays to the middle, working and lower classes in order to further lower taxes for the corporate world and increase government subsidies for overseas traders and investors. ‘Flexibility’ in this context means potentially more room to lower corporate taxes, or to move funds from entitlements to fund payments to bondholders; it also likely means extending age requirements for retirees and increasing fees for medical care.
Budgetary constraints have nothing to do with ‘demographics’ and everything to do with fiscal policy. Achieving ‘economic flexibility’ can be accomplished by corporations accepting lower rates of profits, greater emphasis on public investment in a deteriorating infrastructure, big cuts in a ballooning public military spending, and above all enforcing tax collection from evasive billionaires. According to a recent study (Financial Times, August 2, 2006), “abusive tax shelters were costing the US Treasury $40-70 billion dollars a year in uncollected taxes.” If we add other tax loopholes and less ‘abusive’ tax shelters, we could easily double the above figure. One of the biggest tax dodgers uncovered by Congressional investigators is the billionaire Haim Saban, Chairman of the Los Angeles-based Saban Capital Group and major contributor to Israeli political action committees (PACs) in this country as well as numerous Jewish philanthropies. He was accused by a Congressional sub-committee of “shielding” $1.5 billion dollars from capital gains taxes ‘ad infinitum’ by using a web of fake stock deals and phony corporations on the Isle of Man” (ibid). Another billionaire tycoon, Robert Wood Johnson, heir of the Johnson and Johnson Consumer Corporation was also charged with using a securities firm to carry out fake stock sales to show losses.
The problem of a looming budget crunch can easily be solved by increasing Government regulation and audits of the very wealthy rather than the middle and lower third of our taxpayers. In line with his obfuscation of the revenue side of the budget, Paulson has moved to weaken the recent increase in government oversight of multi-national corporations, seeking repeal or watering down the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposes tough reporting requirements for corporations. Once more citing the need “to achieve the right regulatory balance to allow us to be competitive”, Paulson is pressing Congress to return to the Enron and WorldCom era when CEOs had greater leeway in cooking the books and fleecing investors and employees. What is especially important is Paulson’s very direct and prompt intervention in response to the leaders of investment banking – he acts exactly as one of them.
With Paulson as the leading economic voice and policymaker in the Bush Administration, the big push is to cut social programs, lower taxes and turn over Social Security funds in order to strengthen the expansion of US financial power overseas, both through acquisitions and mergers as well as by direct majority shares in equities.
*snip*
Economic and Military Modes of Empire Building
Will Paulson, Bush’s closest economic adviser, succeed in expanding the economic empire while the Pentagon and State Department wage war? There are several reasons to doubt his success. Bush’s previous effort to privatize Social Security failed. Although the vast majority of US citizens vehemently oppose privatization, Paulson will pursue a step-by-step process by which he may be able to build a ‘bi-partisan’ coalition, especially as a fiscal crisis resulting from the recession may lower tax revenue and raise the decibels about doing ‘something’ (cuts) in entitlement programs. The route of bilateral trade agreements will continue but cannot expect to advance beyond overt client regimes, especially in Latin America because of mass pressure, the opposition of Venezuela and the non-reciprocal nature of US liberal trade reforms (the maintaining of US farm subsidies).
If the wars in the Middle East continue to erode political support for the Bush regime, Paulson’s capacity to implement regressive social policies will decline. It is hard to imagine even the US public supporting the privatization of Social Security, cuts in Medicaid, a growing casualty rate in Iraq and Afghanistan and global diplomatic isolation.
One might argue that the economic empire builders will eventually displace the civilian militarists, the Israel-Firsters and re-assert a new ideological****ail of domestic nationalism and overseas economic expansionism. This is highly unlikely under Paulson’s watch precisely because he is tied to Wall Street which is par excellence based on international movements of capital and would be deeply concerned with any variant of ‘nationalism’ which might provoke overseas imitators.
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed). His new book with Henry Veltmeyer, Social Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina, will be published in October 2005. He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu
http://www.counterpunch.org/petras09052006.html
darjeeling | |
|
vivid
|
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 18 | |
| Conductor:
Posted: 9/13/2006 4:23:38 PM | .........don't forget the loss of full time jobs being replaced with part-time work.
Don't forget the bankruptcies being up at record highs.........who's doing well?
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/BankruptcyGuide/BankruptcyFilingsSoaringAgain.aspx
Canadian dollar was .68 cents just before GWB was elected to office and it's now .90 cents....money ran away from the United States. | |
|
| Conductor:
Posted: 9/13/2006 5:03:46 PM | Come ON, people!!! The O.P. was OBVIOUSLY a troll!! Nobody could seriously be boasting about the good health of the U.S. economy. Only a truly delusional loser could think that things are as good as the O.P. would seem to indicate. I'd suggest that everyone just ignore this goof! | |
|
| Conductor:
Posted: 9/13/2006 5:05:09 PM | A) the so called tax cut is and always was a sham. A 1% point reduction in the HST does little to stimulate and economy, you save $1 for every $100 spent,
What about buying a house or a car?
Do you think that maybe the auto and housing industries generate allot of jobs in Canada?
I would suggest they do. The direct and indirect jobs is massive from these industries.
The GST cut was not really designed to bump sales of small items.
Also, it was a smart political ploy. The GST is not a tax that sits well with people.
When they get it down to 5%, well, even better.
B) Along with the tax "reduction" the tax rate for the lowest bracket was increased. So kiss that $1 and some more good-bye through income tax.
It was 16%. Right before the election Martin dropped it to 15%. Right after the election Harper raised it back up to 15.5%. In that year the lowest income bracket taxes went down .5%. They did not increase 1%.
C) the $100 a month for day care is nothing more than a token gesture for parents. Any parent can tell you that a $100 a month will do little to help.
Its better then zero dollars, isn't it? I hear that argument allot, and I agree, its not much.
But people are being given a handout, they shouldn't b.itch about it.
D) the day-care "suppliment" is subject to clawbacks such as being considered as taxable income.
See my answer to point C.
Look, im not saying Harper has done wonders with his budget. What I am saying, is it is not even comparable to what the American government is doing to the people of the USA.
It was a response to message #4.
The reality is, Harper governs domestically NOTHING like Bush.
You won't see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in Canada to the extent it is happening in the USA.
The two countries are on the polar opposite when it comes to where our money goes.
And the corruption in the USA makes Chretien et al look like school boys that stole a cookie. | |
|
| Conductor:
Posted: 9/13/2006 5:42:30 PM | "It was 16%. Right before the election Martin dropped it to 15%. Right after the election Harper raised it back up to 15.5%. .5% is nothing."
You actually provided a counterpoint to your response to my first point. You disregard 0.5% as nothing. 1% is really close to 0.5%. Well you used a car to justify the savings one you exprience thanks to that tax cut, I can play that game. Lets use an example, a $20,000 car, a 1% reduction in taxes would save you $200 in taxes. So in my province a $20,000 car would cost you $22,800 instead of $23,000.
Now consider income tax an increase of 0.5% on the highest ammount of earned income would cost you $175. But the key thing here is that it hurts the lower income individuals more than anything, because as stated in common economic literature an additional dollar is more valueable to a poor person than a rich person because the necessities are easily paid for. This tax "break" is only going to benefit those who make really big purchases, what does it do for those who don't? They're getting teh short end of the stick.
As an economist myself, I'm not sold on a 1% point reduction of the HST/GST acting as an economic stimulent. Income tax cuts are generally more effective.
"Its better then zero dollars, isn't it? I hear that argument allot, and I agree, its not much.
But people are being given a handout, they shouldn't b.itch about it."
True, better than nothing. But on one hand the government wants people to to go out and work and be self sufficent if they are physially and mentally able, that i agree with and can fully understand. But for people who have children it's a different case. If you cant afford child care while working, the parent is essentially screwed.
There is a demand for a public funded daycare program, like the ones in place for some European countries. Now most of the conservatives during the election waved off the program proposal because it would cost money and we dont want a "welfare" state. But they ignored the fact, that if day care is public provided, parents, espeialy single moms do go out and work more and become less dependent. So fewer social funds will be delivered to them in the form of assistance cheques, but in the form of day care. At the same time the government will benefit from the increase in income tax they will recieve because these parents are now working, or working more hours than they could before.
This is what irks me about many politicians (left and right). They tend to advertise the right now and upfront implications of thier promises NOT the spin-offs and benefits/disadvantages that take place later on because of a policy choice.
But the point is that the rich is getting richer. Real income growth (income growth that accounts for inflation so a $1 in 1981 is in the same terms of a $1 in 2000) of the middle class in Canada has essentially come to a standstill, but the real income growth of the rich has grown.
I do agree with you on the corruption point tho. The Chretien "scandal" was overblown, nobody really pointed out that the size of the scandal was less than 1% (there is that number again:P) of the GDP, it was essentially chump change on the national level.
okay i shall shut-up since I'm basicly ranting not :P | |
|
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 5:48:37 PM | | We arn't doing too bad, personal and national debt was still a problem even in the last economic Boom. I agree we are doing ok, but not too good and we're absolutely not in an economic boom. Even so, we still are the riches nation on earth. Being poor in america, is still like being rich compared to other parts of the world. | |
|
| |
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 6:39:39 PM |
When every other country has their fiscal house in order, running massive deficits is short term gain for long term pain.
so true...
it's CHINA that is buying up most of the bonds...
China has an 8.4 trillion dollar GDP and only 250 billion National debt... and we're paying them billions every year in interest.
the US GDP is about 12.5 trillion with an 8.4 trillion DEBT.
Numbers don't lie.
The debts only been taking off like that since Reagan was elected and "brought back prosperity" with voodoo economics. Borrow alot and spend alot.
We're up to it in our ears. | |
|
vivid
|
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 25 | |
| If George W bush is doing so bad why is the economy doing so good?
Posted: 9/13/2006 6:48:08 PM | I agree we are doing ok, but not too good
What does that even mean anyway? "We are doing OK but NOT TOO GOOD"????
...that's a good example of double-talk.
Your economy is in the toilet!! Wake up!!
America is having a fire sale and it is being bought out! Jobs, industry........everything must go!!!
From the Economist:
Burning the furniture
Ben Bernanke, Mr Greenspan's successor, likes to explain America's current-account deficit as the inevitable consequence of a saving glut in the rest of the world. Yet a large part of the blame lies with the Fed's own policies, which have allowed growth in domestic demand to outstrip supply for no less than ten years on the trot. Part of America's current prosperity is based not on genuine gains in income, nor on high productivity growth, but on borrowing from the future.
The words of Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist of the early 20th century, nicely sum up the illusion:
“It may sometimes be expedient for a man to heat the stove with his furniture. But he should not delude himself by believing that he has discovered a wonderful new method of heating his premises.”
| |
|
|
| Page 1 of 24
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 |
|
Home
login 
Don't post here if you can't keep your "Cool" 
