Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on July 16, 2003, 05:30:57 AM
-
A Record Breaking deficit of $455 and $475 Billion (with a capitol B) for the next 2 years has been announced. What effect is this going to have on the already stumbling economy? Is a full blown Recession ready to happen? Accusations of falcified CIA intel and the can of worms that will open. Are the wheels starting to come off the deadlock cinch 2nd Term?
-
Study history a little before you post silly rhetorically predictive insinuations.
Oh and it will help to get the premise facts correct.
-
Dude where the hell have you been.. As a small biz owner the 'recession' hit as GW Jr. entered office... The icing on the cake was 9-11. 3 months my phones hardly rang at my office. That almost put us out on the street.
The ecnomy is far better now then it was over a hear ago.
-
nope - still rolling over the libs and dumbacrats
-
They(the "wheels") might. And they might not. In any event, the Libs and the Leftists, and their allies in the "Mainstream Media", will keep trying to give their "un-biased opinion", whether factual or not, that the "wheels" have indeed definitely "come off".....
C.
-
Libs like polls right? With an approval rate of 59% as of last night, you can assume your opinion is in the minority.
Bad Lib, no BJ.
-
Don't they teach economics in high school anymore? Deficit spending is the strongest weapon the government has for fighting a recession.
-
It's time to cut taxes again.
-
Are the wheels coming off the GW wagon?
no
Dems. still spinning in the mud though.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Study history a little before you post silly rhetorically predictive insinuations.
Oh and it will help to get the premise facts correct.
Syzy, what premise facts are incorrect? I was echoing a conversation from this morning's Imus program. I didn't just pull this out of thin air.
-
It had wheels?
-
More like treads, I think. :)
-
Im sure with the cash bush has he will win.
If it wasnt for 9/11 we wouldnt even be talking about the possibility of bush being reelectable.
but the democrats only have themselves to blaim. if clinton would have stepped down, and not have been a selfish bastard gore would have won with a landslide in 2000. The party's structure is a joke right now.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Study history a little before you post silly rhetorically predictive insinuations.
Oh and it will help to get the premise facts correct.
Yea,
Like what are the chances of having a sitting President named Bush who takes an approval rating of 90%, goes to war then loses the election over a lousy economy?
It could never happen!!
-
thats an unpossible situation midnight!
-
Originally posted by Toad
More like treads, I think. :)
So what did he use for grease?
-
Originally posted by nuchpatrick
Dude where the hell have you been.. As a small biz owner the 'recession' hit as GW Jr. entered office...
Actually it hit my former industry (aerospace) before GW was even elected. I got laid off as a result. And the bulk of the stock market collapse happened before that. The blame game is all partisan spin.
-
Odd, Funked up, the stock market pecked in Dec 2000..
Naw, if you take away Bush loosing the 300 billion surplus adding a half a Trillion more to the deficit.. tinkering with the Bill of Rights to cause major damage to the 1st and 4th amendments,... Lying through his teeth to the American people, Congress, the U.N security council about the reasons for war of aggression why.... you’d have a mighty fine President.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
They(the "wheels") might. And they might not. In any event, the Libs and the Leftists, and their allies in the "Mainstream Media", will keep trying to give their "un-biased opinion", whether factual or not, that the "wheels" have indeed definitely "come off".....
C.
Would this be the same mainstream media that helped Dubya sell his little war?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Odd, Funked up, the stock market pecked in Dec 2000..
The first big crash was the fall of 1998 actually. It recovered some after that but that's when things started getting sketchy. Right now the Dow is about where it was at the end of 1998.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Syzy, what premise facts are incorrect? I was echoing a conversation from this morning's Imus program. I didn't just pull this out of thin air.
Don Imus = Hot Air, and IIRK, Hot Air is thin Air, so you did in fact pull it out of thin air.
Best of luck to ya though!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yea,
Like what are the chances of having a sitting President named Bush who takes an approval rating of 90%, goes to war then loses the election over a lousy economy?
It could never happen!!
Do I detect some wishful thinking MT?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Would this be the same mainstream media that helped Dubya sell his little war?
There's a stretch Sandy!
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
There's a stretch Sandy!
Oh not that much... He didn't get a 60+% approval rating for the war on Iraq because of an article in "The Nation." The war was sold on the nightly news.
:)
-
Syzy, you still haven't said what facts, if any, were incorrect. I'm putting forward a legit question. It's not that inconceivable that Bush could lose his party's nomination to a strong Republican (i.e.McCain) if the economy continues to crumble. There is only so much that can be blamed on 9/11.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
A Record Breaking deficit of $455 and $475 Billion (with a capitol B) for the next 2 years has been announced. What effect is this going to have on the already stumbling economy? Is a full blown Recession ready to happen? Accusations of falcified CIA intel and the can of worms that will open. Are the wheels starting to come off the deadlock cinch 2nd Term?
You do know that this deficit is not even close to a record deficit based on % of GDP?
The dollar amount may be a deficit, but that's subjective to the current value of the dollar .
By contrast, look at California's deficit..... higher than all states combined. 33 billiion or so??
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
There's a stretch Sandy!
The media has been pretty nice to the military, they haven't revealed that the soldiers call the Iraqis 'hajis', yet.
-
i thought they called them "ali baba"
anyway, imus is a jerk, if it wasn't for his call-ins he would have no show. and they have to call in or imus will bad mouth them with extreme bitterness. imus :" that jerk would not come on my show? , well that jerk will never come on my show, i will never have that jerk on my show, etc etc etc "
-
Imus is every bit as annoying as:
Howard Stern
Rush Limbaugh
Dr. Laura
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Imus is every bit as annoying as:
Howard Stern
Rush Limbaugh
Dr. Laura
Yeah, kind of have to agree with you there, dammit!
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Syzy, you still haven't said what facts, if any, were incorrect. I'm putting forward a legit question. It's not that inconceivable that Bush could lose his party's nomination to a strong Republican (i.e.McCain) if the economy continues to crumble. There is only so much that can be blamed on 9/11.
Well the mere fact that you typed it shows that it is not inconceivable doesn't it.
Your original post insinuates that the deficit is a record. That's not the truth, is it. It's SPIN, isn't it. The deficit isn't even close to a record in terms of GNP percentage.
Your original post states that the economy is stumbling. By many measures, it isn't. So, your question about Bush' vulnerability due to the economy begs the question of the true condition of the economy. and no, I'm not going to play the statistics game.
You state that there a accusations of falsified CIA intel. I don't think that's a fact either. There was a forged doc that was found out and not used as a basis IIRC, and the yellowcake issue is far from proven to be false, according to the news reports I've seen lately. Just ask the French DGSE, eh?
As far as how much can be blamed on 9/11, I think it's a lot more than your insinuation insinuates. I don't think we can know the full ripple effects until much more time has passed and history sorts things out.
I've got no problem with your legitimate questions about wether or not Bush is vulnerable. Of course he is. But what is the worth of asking a legitimate question with so much illigitmate spin garbage as its premise.
And if your gonna troll, I have to admit that trolling with Imus bait does provide the requisite stink. After all, you hooked me din't ya. But, in the future, try to use more reliable sources like CNN or even better the BBC or ever more better, the NY or LA times. Oh never mind, those are what Imus uses.
Meanwhile, please keep us informed of how the McCain for president campaign is going. We all need a good laugh cause, the economy sucks ya know!
:D
-
Here's CNN's (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/deficit.ap/index.html) story.
Even so, a shortfall 4 percent as large as the economy begins to approach the dimension of the deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s that both parties agreed then were untenable.
I belive McCain has already announced he will not run, I was just using him as an example.
-
:rolleyes:
(http://ichart.yahoo.com/z?s=^dji&a=v&p=s&t=5y&l=off&z=m&q=l)
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Here's CNN's (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/deficit.ap/index.html) story.
I belive McCain has already announced he will not run, I was just using him as an example.
Sorry if I seemed to be flamin ya' earlier RPM. It was late and I had a bad night. Couldn't sleep. So, what do I do? Check out the AH BBS. Dumb!
But, about your latest post, from your quote, though, I think the operative words to heed are "begins to approach". That's far from being a "record".
:D
-
Originally posted by rpm
A Record Breaking deficit of $455 and $475 Billion (with a capitol B) for the next 2 years has been announced. What effect is this going to have on the already stumbling economy? Is a full blown Recession ready to happen? Accusations of falcified CIA intel and the can of worms that will open. Are the wheels starting to come off the deadlock cinch 2nd Term?
No.
-
Originally posted by rpm
A Record Breaking deficit of $455 and $475 Billion (with a capitol B) for the next 2 years has been announced.
Not record breaking based on GDP.
Also, we are at war.
Oh well, back to AH.
-
It went to **** in 1998. The tech boom blew to hell in 2000, but it was already way gone by 1999. The economy is pretty strong right now, and I don't really care about deficts, nor do the Democrats, any more than they care about the "major ills plaguing SSI" (Democratic words, circa 2002).
-
LOL! RPM has a sTawlkAr!!!11
-
it's 2003 all over again !
-
What effect is this going to have on the already stumbling economy?
Hey dip****, maybe your economy is faltering but our is chugging along quite nicely, with healthy growth.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Syzy, what premise facts are incorrect? I was echoing a conversation from this morning's Imus program. I didn't just pull this out of thin air.
Imus??
Your using Imus as your credible source??
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Odd, Funked up, the stock market pecked in Dec 2000..
Naw, if you take away Bush loosing the 300 billion surplus adding a half a Trillion more to the deficit.. tinkering with the Bill of Rights to cause major damage to the 1st and 4th amendments,... Lying through his teeth to the American people, Congress, the U.N security council about the reasons for war of aggression why.... you’d have a mighty fine President.
the Markets were on their downward spiral well before Dec 2000.
I remember in August before the election hearing a guy on the radio blaming the markets downward trend on Greenspan.
The surplus. if I remember correctly was a "projected" surplus.
The idea He "lied" is a bunch of BS. If he lied so did many Democrats including Clinton, Gore. And many in Congress also.
Tell us. PLEASE explain to us how he lied to Congress when in 1998 Dem members of Congress including its leadership said this
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
And this
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
And how about Clintons Secratarty of State saying this?
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
and this
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
All these statements were made prior to Bush even being elected
So please I implore you. Explain to us how "Bush lied" and they didnt.
-
Wait a second.
I just noticed.
I'm flipping responding to post in threads damn near two years old!
STOP DIGGING UP OLD CHIT!:lol
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
LOL! RPM has a sTawlkAr!!!11
I must have touched a nerve. ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm
A Record Breaking deficit of $455 and $475 Billion (with a capitol B) for the next 2 years has been announced. What effect is this going to have on the already stumbling economy? Is a full blown Recession ready to happen? Accusations of falcified CIA intel and the can of worms that will open. Are the wheels starting to come off the deadlock cinch 2nd Term?
First things first, nothing you have said is factual. Start there and maybe we can have a discussion.
If I have post once then I have post 10 times, this is not a RECORD deficit. not even close.
The economy is not "stumbling", new revised job numbers are out and Bush replaced every job we lost due to Clintons tech bubble burst, 9/11 attack and two wars.
Bush has no control over Clinton's CIA. He never replaced any of the managers that he took on from the previous admin.
-
Notice when I posted this the first time.
07-22-2003 11:42 PM
Fables of Finance:
Budget: The budget deficit is expected to jump to $450 Billion this year, causing some deficit hawks to warn of a growing “crisis.” Sorry, but the crisis doesn’t exist.
Those who fear the deficit seem surpassingly immune to any lessons from history.
For history shows that most of what we hear about the deficits wrong. This deficit, in the truest sense, isn’t a “record”. It’s not even close. This year the deficit will come in at about $455 billion, or 4.2% of GDP, which is the most meaningful way to measure spending gaps. How big is that?
It doesn’t even make the top five since 1980.
Yet we’re repeatedly warned that record deficits will drive up interest rates. The logic behind that thought, while impeccable, isn’t supported by reality.
Let’s look at the record. At the start of the 1980s-another period of “record” deficits-the 10-year Treasury yield got as high as 15%.
Despite the continued presence of deficits, the 10-year sank to 8% by the end of the 1980s. Interest rates continued to fall during the 1990s. By 2000, the U.S. had triumphed, posting a record surplus. Yet the 10-year Treasury note was still over 6%.
Since then, the deficit has surged. So interest rates have surged too, right? Nope. Long rates are below 4%. It’s pretty clear. If there is any link at all between deficits and interest rates. It’s very weak.
But now that the White House, as one headline put it, “admits” to the “record” deficit, deficit foes say it’s clear something has to be done. But what? In fact, what we’re seeing right now is entirely normal. After an economic downturn, the deficit always gets worse.
It’s a pattern that can be seen in each of the last three recessions. Since 1980, the deficit has averaged 4.5% of GDP in the year after the economy bottomed-just about where it is now.The reason for this is simple. A shrinking economy brings in less money. So the government spends like crazy to make up the difference, and the deficits gets worse.
So excessive fear of deficits is often used as a bludgeon against good ideas like tax cuts, which inarguably lead to higher growth and a healthier economy. Meanwhile, as those who opose tax cuts wail, Congress is boosting spending at an 8% annual clip.
AS president Bush’s top economist, Stephen Friedman, has noted, just holding the line on that spending for a few years- letting it grow at a pace less then GDP-would cut the deficit to zero in a decade or so. That’s the best way to erase the deficit.
In the meantime, relax. This is no record deficit. Back in 1943, during WWII, the deficit hit 30.3% of GDP. Now, that was a record.
-
Originally posted by rpm
A Record Breaking deficit of $455 and $475 Billion (with a capitol B) for the next 2 years has been announced. What effect is this going to have on the already stumbling economy? Is a full blown Recession ready to happen? Accusations of falcified CIA intel and the can of worms that will open. Are the wheels starting to come off the deadlock cinch 2nd Term?
Just saw this one, so I'll answer it:
Little to None, No, No, and Not Enough To Matter.
-
Originally posted by rpm
A Record Breaking deficit of $455 and $475 Billion (with a capitol B) for the next 2 years has been announced. What effect is this going to have on the already stumbling economy? Is a full blown Recession ready to happen? Accusations of falcified CIA intel and the can of worms that will open. Are the wheels starting to come off the deadlock cinch 2nd Term?
you wish.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
LOL! RPM has a sTawlkAr!!!11
...and a ghey one at that.
-
RPM,
Where your rebuttals?
You through out such nonsense, then disappear when it gets blasted out of the water.
How do responsed to the facts?
For history shows that most of what we hear about the deficits wrong. This deficit, in the truest sense, isn’t a “record”. It’s not even close. This year the deficit will come in at about $455 billion, or 4.2% of GDP, which is the most meaningful way to measure spending gaps. How big is that?
It doesn’t even make the top five since 1980.
It’s a pattern that can be seen in each of the last three recessions. Since 1980, the deficit has averaged 4.5% of GDP in the year after the economy bottomed-just about where it is now.The reason for this is simple. A shrinking economy brings in less money. So the government spends like crazy to make up the difference, and the deficits gets worse.
In the meantime, relax. This is no record deficit. Back in 1943, during WWII, the deficit hit 30.3% of GDP. Now, that was a record.
-
ummm.... why did we feel the need to resurrect this?