Kerry and the Media have told us this is worst Economy since Hoover, is it?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Fact is, for the most part, you picked the first three years of both in office to compare.

Problem with that, is that those years were inherited by the previous person in office.

What were the last years of Clinton in office like when compared to Bush #2?

What were the first years of Clinton in office like when compared to the last years of Bush #1 in office?

What were the first year(s) of Bush #1 in office compared to Reagan's last year(s)?

etc.

Statistics can be played any way you want, this thread is a great example of that.

Oh, and pre-emptive typical battle cry of "handsomehunkcrat"- I am no democrat.
-SW

But as the link points out, as well as the subject of the thread why did the press play Clinton's reign as "a great ecomony" while Bush's gets meager positive press?

[vorticon]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
But as the link points out, as well as the subject of the thread why did the press play Clinton's reign as "a great ecomony" while Bush's gets meager positive press?

'


because the evil newspapers are evilly liberally biased!!!111oneoneone

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Why did you quote my post? Seems a little bit much.

Reason they hyped Clinton was because of the techno-bubble that blew up during Clinton's time in office. So many new businesses (as opposed to job openings) were popping up. It was happening so fast, as Grun points out, kids right out of college were being swallowed up and being paid wages atleast twice - if not three times - as much as the same job pays now with the same education.

It was a great time, but Clinton had nothing to do with it. Just the same as Bush has little to do with the current economy.

Of course, I don't like this game of "my president is better" - I was just pointing out the obvious flaws in the use of the statistics. So with what I said above, enjoy the "RAH RAH, GOOOO TEAM!" that is already in progress.
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It was a great time, but Clinton had nothing to do with it. Just the same as Bush has little to do with the current economy.

-SW

Why didn't you quote my post? Im not sure if you're replying to me or not...
So tax cuts did nothing for the economy? Is that your speculation? Or do you just choose to be ignorant of chief economists like Greenspan?

[TheDudeDVant]

Lets compare National Debt then and now.

Then, lets compare National Deficit then and now.

Are we now more reliant or less reliant on foreign investment than before?

Is it possible to compare the number of peoples that made up the 'work force' in the Clinton/Bush2 years? Is it true that if you are not out actively searching for a job or not registered with your local employment programs that you're left out of the overall unemployment statistic?

Also, what impact does the redesignation of the food service industry and the like play into these numbers?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Lets compare National Debt then and now.

Then, lets compare National Deficit then and now.

Are we now more reliant or less reliant on foreign investment than before?

Is it possible to compare the number of peoples that made up the 'work force' in the Clinton/Bush2 years? Is it true that if you are not out actively searching for a job or not registered with your local employment programs that you're left out of the overall unemployment statistic?

Also, what impact does the redesignation of the food service industry and the like play into these numbers?

Why not start a thread on that, instead of hijacking this one?  This thread is about media bias related to the economy.

Oh and...I'd better add the skuzzy thing...

Off topic.

Editted by Skuzzy[/size]

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

It wasn't a tax cut, it was a tax refund.

No, I do not believe that is the reason for the economy and employment rate going on the upswing. Things such as increased security measures (more man power required), new government departments and reorganization of prior government departments (Secret Service went on a recruiting binge due to most of their Uniformed Officers going into the DHS), increased need for logistical assistance via private corporations, increased need for consulting via private corporations - both corporations have their underlying support staff from IT people to janitors. etc.

Thats what got the economy moving.

Oh, nice edit - maybe I'll go search for something to make my point while you are reading this and then replying, then put it in. You are so predictable, I was wondering where your link was.
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It wasn't a tax cut, it was a tax refund.

No, I do not believe that is the reason for the economy and employment rate going on the upswing. Things such as increased security measures (more man power required), new government departments and reorganization of prior government departments (Secret Service went on a recruiting binge due to most of their Uniformed Officers going into the DHS), increased need for logistical assistance via private corporations, increased need for consulting via private corporations - both corporations have their underlying support staff from IT people to janitors. etc.

Thats what got the economy moving.

Oh, nice edit - maybe I'll go search for something to make my point while you are reading this and then replying, then put it in. You are so predictable, I was wondering where your link was.
-SW

Obviously you're a victim of the DC school districts.

Tax CUT is when it is issued.

Tax REFUND is when you receive it.

It helped a struggling economy, whether you deny it or not.  No one said it was the SOLE reason for recovery.

[JBA]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Lets compare National Debt then and now.

Then, lets compare National Deficit then and now.

Are we now more reliant or less reliant on foreign investment than before?

Is it possible to compare the number of peoples that made up the 'work force' in the Clinton/Bush2 years? Is it true that if you are not out actively searching for a job or not registered with your local employment programs that you're left out of the overall unemployment statistic?

Also, what impact does the redesignation of the food service industry and the like play into these numbers?

First the only true measure of dept and spending and all things money in the government is to adjust for inflation. You never measure as whole dollars, bad Economics.

You do this by comparing it to the GDP of that year. Just like you would find the common denominator in algebra.

The History of Government has shown that all recession are followed by debt of 5%. This is because as a recession happens there are jobs lost therefore lose revenue. The government must pick up the slack and therefore spend more then it takes in.

The “RECORD” defect that Kerry and the media like to quote is BS at best. It stands at 3.6% of the GDP. The “record” was set at the end of WWII at 38.9% GDP. The historical average is about 5% for the past 30 years.

Foreign investment, we have a huge amount of foreign investment, because we have the freest markets with the lowest taxes on the gains of those investments.

The population has grown since 1996, I’m sure a quick look at he censure numbers would show you that more people have entered, legally/illegally, the  US then we have lost in jobs.
 


Now back to the topic, Why is this betrayed as a bad economy.

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why not start a thread on that, instead of hijacking this one?  This thread is about media bias related to the economy.

Oh and...I'd better add the skuzzy thing...

Off topic.

Editted by Skuzzy[/size]

National Debt and Deficit, IMO, would have a very heavy voice in a 'great' economy or a 'meager' economy. I believe my post was very much on topic.

After you post:

Why didn't you quote my post? Im not sure if you're replying to me or not... So tax cuts did nothing for the economy? Is that your speculation? Or do you just choose to be ignorant of chief economists like Greenspan?

Do you really find it necessary to attempt Skuzzy's job and lecture about off-topic post? ppppplease!!

This thread is home to my very first Skuzzy edited post since the new rules.. 8)

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

A tax cut is when the government reduces the tax rate, they only gave back money - didn't reduce the tax rate.

Just because I lived in DC does not mean I went to a DC school, maybe you should look to see just how small DC is and how accessible MD and VA are by public transportation.

You only use Greenspan as your support because he agrees with you. See, I just found a link that agreed with me: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=as5MNXx4cs94&refer=us

Government official, or independent market analysts - I know who I trust more.

It isn't just me that doesn't agree with it, but of course you don't bother to research the half you don't want to see.
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
National Debt and Deficit, IMO, would have a very heavy voice in a 'great' economy or a 'meager' economy. I believe my post was very much on topic.

 

Well if you insist on bringing it into this topic, both candidates running for the presidency promise to spend even larger amounts of money by expanding existing entitlements and creating new ones. Corporate debt has hardly budged over the last four years despite a bear market in equity. Companies have used historically low interest rates to add additional debt to the balance sheet. Households are also loaded to the gills with debt, chiefly in the form of mortgages, home equity loans, and credit card debts.

So what else is new?  We haven't spent Gov't monies "within our budgets" since 1969.

[-MZ-]

The US Govt. has effectively barrowed $100 billion from the Communist Chinese to help finance the tax cuts.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

I also find it funny that you immediately presumed I didn't think the tax breaks had any effect on the economy. I clearly said:

"It was a great time, but Clinton had nothing to do with it. Just the same as Bush has little to do with the current economy."

I didn't say, "nothing." But, like always, you read what you want to read and then go on an offensive posting links that agree with you and ignoring links that don't.
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
A tax cut is when the government reduces the tax rate, they only gave back money - didn't reduce the tax rate.
-SW

Ah, I see. You only looked at a certain section of the tax cut.

Here is the rest for you. Its good to be informed. You're welcome in advance!

~Replacing the current tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent (see Appendix for rate schedule);

~Doubling the child tax credit to $1,000 per child and applying the credit to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);

~Reducing the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples;

~Reducing the death tax;

~Expanding the charitable deduction to non-itemizers; and
Making the Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit permanent.