• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Administration Makes A Big Mistake.

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Pacridge said:
RightatNYU said:
anomaly said:
So since one of the sources came from a leftest bias, you're just going to side step the whole question?

I'm just wondering. A lot of what conservatives say makes some sense to me. I don't always agree. Sometimes honestly I do, but I almost always at least understand the argument. But this massive debt and the deficit absolutely doesn't make any sense to me what so ever. You seem intelligent- what's your take on it?

I wasn't involved in the debate, I was just making a point.

Regarding your question, the honest truth?

I would have a hard time explaining away Bush's economic policies. Truthfully. I think he's trying to please too many people. While people may get riled up over big defecits, they get even more riled up when their taxes go up, or their pet program gets cut.

I think Bush has bowed to pressure from too many groups to get their support, or at least avoid their outright disapproval. While it may be good politics, I don't know how good it is for us in the long term.

I will say this in his defense, however:

Our economy is growing rapidly, the GDP is booming, and although our debt is massive, if you look at our debt as a percentage of GDP, it's 62.4 percent, placing us in the middle of the pack worldwide, and in the company of Germany and Spain. We're doing better than France, Canada, Israel, Italy, etc, and far better than Japan, whose debt is 150% of their GDP, proving that it's not necessarily a sign of a weak economy.

Although this isn't my area of expertise, I've got plenty of friends who ramble on to me for hours and hours about how Bush's economic policies are perfect for the country. Truth is, I couldn't and wouldn't make that argument.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Pacridge said:
RightatNYU said:
anomaly said:
So since one of the sources came from a leftest bias, you're just going to side step the whole question?

I'm just wondering. A lot of what conservatives say makes some sense to me. I don't always agree. Sometimes honestly I do, but I almost always at least understand the argument. But this massive debt and the deficit absolutely doesn't make any sense to me what so ever. You seem intelligent- what's your take on it?
I would certainly prefer that there was less spending. However, some things can't be helped.

This is not the first time that the debt and deficits were proportionately as high as they are. What will reduce both is exactly what has reduced them every time in the past. As the economy continues to grow, tax revenues will increase. The faster the growth, the faster the increase.

As I wrote earlier, if the Democrats would either board the ship or get out of the way, the economic policies of the administration would function and things would improve. However, as the world knows, the Democrats have decided to be the anchor that impedes the administration plans.

My personal belief is that the Democrats will continue to anything and everything possible to keep the administration from looking good. They will do anything they think might stem their loss of Congressional and Senatorial seats.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
RightatNYU said:
I wasn't involved in the debate, I was just making a point.

Regarding your question, the honest truth?

I would have a hard time explaining away Bush's economic policies. Truthfully. I think he's trying to please too many people. While people may get riled up over big defecits, they get even more riled up when their taxes go up, or their pet program gets cut.

I think Bush has bowed to pressure from too many groups to get their support, or at least avoid their outright disapproval. While it may be good politics, I don't know how good it is for us in the long term.

I will say this in his defense, however:

Our economy is growing rapidly, the GDP is booming, and although our debt is massive, if you look at our debt as a percentage of GDP, it's 62.4 percent, placing us in the middle of the pack worldwide, and in the company of Germany and Spain. We're doing better than France, Canada, Israel, Italy, etc, and far better than Japan, whose debt is 150% of their GDP, proving that it's not necessarily a sign of a weak economy.

Although this isn't my area of expertise, I've got plenty of friends who ramble on to me for hours and hours about how Bush's economic policies are perfect for the country. Truth is, I couldn't and wouldn't make that argument.
You just demolished the argument of the socialist-lib-dems who are struggling mightily to bring down the President.

The administration inherited a budding recession followed by the 9-11 blow to the economy followed by the expenses associated with the Middle East. Things looked bleak and the Dems were ecstatic.

The administration took the necessary action to spur the economy and the economy responded. It continues to rise. Revenues continue to rise. Things are looking good and the Dems are having a coronary.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
You just demolished the argument of the socialist-lib-dems who are struggling mightily to bring down the President.

The administration inherited a budding recession followed by the 9-11 blow to the economy followed by the expenses associated with the Middle East. Things looked bleak and the Dems were ecstatic.

The administration took the necessary action to spur the economy and the economy responded. It continues to rise. Revenues continue to rise. Things are looking good and the Dems are having a coronary.
Having inequality comparable to latin American countries is 'good'? However slow Europe's economy appears to be growing (actually, I believe there's a book out now that says quite the opposite of Europe: it says the EU is now just as powerful as the USA economically and says 'the end of American supremacy' is near), people there are living just as well, and in some cases, better than we in America live (especially the poor). Contrary to Fant's belief, 'lib-soc-dem' (those three are actually 3 completely different things; no Dem is a socialist and few anymore are liberals, so perhaps drop the little phrase and stop spewing untruths) economic policy has worked before. From the 1930s to the '70s, the Keynesian era, the economy grew 3 times, so to pass off liberasl policy that creates more equality as 'bad' economically doesn't stand up to many facts. And perhaps you should stop calling 9/11 a 'massive blow' to our economy; you know as well as I that 9/11 hurt our economy in about the same way a slap on the wrist hurts you, it was hardly a massive blow, and, with the inevitability of war, it actually stimulated weapons dealers to produce more. But again, I have a hard time figuring out how any human being could call a 'cut and spend' economic policy 'successful'!
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
Having inequality comparable to latin American countries is 'good'? However slow Europe's economy appears to be growing (actually, I believe there's a book out now that says quite the opposite of Europe: it says the EU is now just as powerful as the USA economically and says 'the end of American supremacy' is near), people there are living just as well, and in some cases, better than we in America live (especially the poor). Contrary to Fant's belief, 'lib-soc-dem' (those three are actually 3 completely different things; no Dem is a socialist and few anymore are liberals, so perhaps drop the little phrase and stop spewing untruths) economic policy has worked before. From the 1930s to the '70s, the Keynesian era, the economy grew 3 times, so to pass off liberasl policy that creates more equality as 'bad' economically doesn't stand up to many facts. And perhaps you should stop calling 9/11 a 'massive blow' to our economy; you know as well as I that 9/11 hurt our economy in about the same way a slap on the wrist hurts you, it was hardly a massive blow, and, with the inevitability of war, it actually stimulated weapons dealers to produce more. But again, I have a hard time figuring out how any human being could call a 'cut and spend' economic policy 'successful'!

You're entitled to your own opinion, but there are a few things I draw issue with in that statement.

Just because there's a book out that says the opposite of Europe doesn't make it true. Look at the actual numbers for GDP growth rate and unemployment.

9/11 was only a "slap on the wrist" to our economy?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02700r.pdf

An 83 billion dollar slap on the wrist, according to the GAO. And that's only in measurable costs. You can't calculate how much of the stock crash was based on the attacks, or how much it hurt us because the Fed had to cut interest rates and increase money supply so quickly.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Having inequality comparable to latin American countries is 'good'?
If you're complaining about the differences between the US economy and that of Latin American countries, you might wish to take into account the fact that, with the exception of the largest metropolitan areas, most Latin American countries are undeveloped and lag between fifty and a hundred years behind. This is closely related to the instability of government for long periods. Also, the 'siesta' mentality, which is so prevalent, has never been an economic stimulant.
However slow Europe's economy appears to be growing (actually, I believe there's a book out now that says quite the opposite of Europe: it says the EU is now just as powerful as the USA economically and says 'the end of American supremacy' is near), people there are living just as well, and in some cases, better than we in America live (especially the poor).
It's about time, don't you think?
Contrary to Fant's belief, 'lib-soc-dem' (those three are actually 3 completely different things; no Dem is a socialist and few anymore are liberals, so perhaps drop the little phrase and stop spewing untruths)
We see things through different eyes.
economic policy has worked before. From the 1930s to the '70s, the Keynesian era, the economy grew 3 times, so to pass off liberasl policy that creates more equality as 'bad' economically doesn't stand up to many facts.
A favorite trick of folks who wish to use statistics to bolster a position is to use a period that is sufficiently long so as to mask a number of years of poor performance by averaging them into a much longer period of good performance. So that you may not be suspected of such behavior, do us all a favor and take the forty year period you chose and divide it into four ten year periods; 1930-39, 1940-49, 1950-59, 1960-69. Then make your case.
And perhaps you should stop calling 9/11 a 'massive blow' to our economy; you know as well as I that 9/11 hurt our economy in about the same way a slap on the wrist hurts you, it was hardly a massive blow,
I won't embarrass you with the truth.
and, with the inevitability of war, it actually stimulated weapons dealers to produce more.
Does the term 'lag' mean anything to you?
But again, I have a hard time figuring out how any human being could call a 'cut and spend' economic policy 'successful'!
Yes, I know. However, if you apply yourself diligently, one of these days, you may figure it out.

In the meantime, why not review the current economic indicators and tell us which ones are pointing up and which are pointing down.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
anomaly said:
If you're complaining about the differences between the US economy and that of Latin American countries, you might wish to take into account the fact that, with the exception of the largest metropolitan areas, most Latin American countries are undeveloped and lag between fifty and a hundred years behind. This is closely related to the instability of government for long periods. Also, the 'siesta' mentality, which is so prevalent, has never been an economic stimulant.It's about time, don't you think?We see things through different eyes.A favorite trick of folks who wish to use statistics to bolster a position is to use a period that is sufficiently long so as to mask a number of years of poor performance by averaging them into a much longer period of good performance. So that you may not be suspected of such behavior, do us all a favor and take the forty year period you chose and divide it into four ten year periods; 1930-39, 1940-49, 1950-59, 1960-69. Then make your case.I won't embarrass you with the truth.Does the term 'lag' mean anything to you?Yes, I know. However, if you apply yourself diligently, one of these days, you may figure it out.

In the meantime, why not review the current economic indicators and tell us which ones are pointing up and which are pointing down.
Most of this is utter nonsense, and we could discuss most of it elsewhere, but there is one thing I find especially concerning, and it is what this whole argument has become: how can you find cutting taxes and then proposing record spending smart economic policy? Through this debate I realize that you, unlike most people, have no ideas of your own, but rather you have total faith in your hero, GW Bush. Even when he proposes something so insane as spending increasingly while cutting taxes, you support him! Unbelievable! This will increase the debt obviously, and will create a burden that my generation will have to deal with.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
Fantasea said:
Most of this is utter nonsense, and we could discuss most of it elsewhere, but there is one thing I find especially concerning, and it is what this whole argument has become: how can you find cutting taxes and then proposing record spending smart economic policy? Through this debate I realize that you, unlike most people, have no ideas of your own, but rather you have total faith in your hero, GW Bush. Even when he proposes something so insane as spending increasingly while cutting taxes, you support him! Unbelievable! This will increase the debt obviously, and will create a burden that my generation will have to deal with.

The debt truly isn't important.

The whole premise is that by virtue of the tax cuts, the economy will grow, stimulating tax receipts, and creating a surplus.

It's worked in the past several times, which is more than I can say for socialism.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
anomaly said:
The debt truly isn't important.

The whole premise is that by virtue of the tax cuts, the economy will grow, stimulating tax receipts, and creating a surplus.

It's worked in the past several times, which is more than I can say for socialism.
The debt isn't important? Even adjusting for inflation, with the spending Bush is proposing coupled with his tax cuts (which are obviously for the rich) it could lead to critical problems. The debt is rising, adjusting for inflation, and with a mad spender-tax cutter like Bush, it will continue to rise.

Also, I would hope that even you can see that cutting taxes and then spending money you don't have is bad for the economy. It's rather simple. And please do not be so fast to bad mouth socialism as you so consistently do. Socialism, of the democratic variant, has never been tried, yet you continue to denounce based on most likely Stalinist failure. Stalinism is not the same as socialism, please realize that.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
RightatNYU said:
The debt isn't important? no Even adjusting for inflation, with the spending Bush is proposing coupled with his tax cuts (which are obviously for the rich)no actual proof it could lead to critical problems. The debt is rising, adjusting for inflationnot the case , and with a mad spender-tax cutter like Bush, it will continue to rise.

Also, I would hope that even you can see that cutting taxes and then spending money you don't have is bad for the economyagain, not the case . It's rather simple. And please do not be so fast to bad mouth socialism as you so consistently do. Socialism, of the democratic variant, has never been tried, yet you continue to denounce based on most likely Stalinist failure. Stalinism is not the same as socialism, please realize thatDidn't say it was...Stalinism actually worked for a little while. Socialism? Nah. .
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
I actually have given proof of these tax cuts for the rich. Perhaps you weren't able to find my link. But, if you go back a bit, it's there. Unfotunately, I'm not capable of doing any research, since my internet's down, and I'm using the family (slow) computer, so I can't check out the debt compared with inflation. Also, I saw how you give a nice link of 9/11's economic effects. Again, I can't do my own research right now, but I will probably tomorrow. As for you still thinking that spending, I think it's 2.6 trillion, when there's only 2.2 trillion available to spend, as for thinking that not vetoing a single spending bill is 'good economic policy', I simply can't believe how a college student can believe this. You can't spend money you don't have. I can't believe two Republicans have so much faith as to favor such reckless spending! Aren't Republicans supposed to be all for cutting taxes and cutting spending? Isn't that supposed to lead to supposedly 'good economy'? I certainly wish we could get a libertarian in on this argument.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
RightatNYU said:
I actually have given proof of these tax cuts for the rich. Perhaps you weren't able to find my link. But, if you go back a bit, it's there. Unfotunately, I'm not capable of doing any research, since my internet's down, and I'm using the family (slow) computer, so I can't check out the debt compared with inflation. Also, I saw how you give a nice link of 9/11's economic effects. Again, I can't do my own research right now, but I will probably tomorrow. As for you still thinking that spending, I think it's 2.6 trillion, when there's only 2.2 trillion available to spend, as for thinking that not vetoing a single spending bill is 'good economic policy', I simply can't believe how a college student can believe this. You can't spend money you don't have. I can't believe two Republicans have so much faith as to favor such reckless spending! Aren't Republicans supposed to be all for cutting taxes and cutting spending? Isn't that supposed to lead to supposedly 'good economy'? I certainly wish we could get a libertarian in on this argument.


I already made a post explaining how I would find it difficult to support the President's economic policies. However, your arguments are making it easier for me.

I'll save you the research.

There are studies showing that the tax cuts benefitted the rich, and there are studies showing the converse. They are drawn largely along partisan lines. The point is, the rich still pay higher taxes.

The link of 9/11's economic effects is from the GAO. Again, there were many studies, but this was the "authoritative" one.

As to the debt size, go to the CIA factbook and look at Debt as percentage of GDP for all countries, ranked. You'll be surprised.

Bush didn't veto a single bill because he controlled both houses of Congress. He got what he wanted the first time, and was authoritative enough that if he signaled that he wouldn't sign a bill, it didn't even get passed.

The way you spend 2.6 and collect 2.2 is by planning on receiving a large return on your 2.6
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
anomaly said:
I already made a post explaining how I would find it difficult to support the President's economic policies. However, your arguments are making it easier for me.

I'll save you the research.

There are studies showing that the tax cuts benefitted the rich, and there are studies showing the converse. They are drawn largely along partisan lines. The point is, the rich still pay higher taxes.

The link of 9/11's economic effects is from the GAO. Again, there were many studies, but this was the "authoritative" one.

As to the debt size, go to the CIA factbook and look at Debt as percentage of GDP for all countries, ranked. You'll be surprised.

Bush didn't veto a single bill because he controlled both houses of Congress. He got what he wanted the first time, and was authoritative enough that if he signaled that he wouldn't sign a bill, it didn't even get passed.

The way you spend 2.6 and collect 2.2 is by planning on receiving a large return on your 2.6
The fact is that tax cuts help the rich. Look on any site and you'll see they got the vast majority of tax cuts. And the whole point is that you cannot make tax cuts permanent without spending less. That should be obvious. I cannot believe we're debating on something so painfully obvious. I mean even the Cato institute says that Bush's economic policy of cut and spend is pretty much insane. You just can't cut taxes and then spend less without feeling those effects later. And you misunderstand: The budget allows for the spending of 2.2, but Bush is spending 2.6!
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
RightatNYU said:
The fact is that tax cuts help the rich. Look on any site and you'll see they got the vast majority of tax cuts. And the whole point is that you cannot make tax cuts permanent without spending less. That should be obvious. I cannot believe we're debating on something so painfully obvious. I mean even the Cato institute says that Bush's economic policy of cut and spend is pretty much insane. You just can't cut taxes and then spend less without feeling those effects later. And you misunderstand: The budget allows for the spending of 2.2, but Bush is spending 2.6!

I understand perfectly. The tax cuts "help" the "rich", in that they still pay more taxes. Another way to look at it is these tax cuts lower how much the "rich" are getting screwed.

And I thought I made my response painfully obvious:

The way you spend 2.6 while only taking in 2.2 is by planning on a large return on your 2.6
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
If you're complaining about the differences between the US economy and that of Latin American countries, you might wish to take into account the fact that, with the exception of the largest metropolitan areas, most Latin American countries are undeveloped and lag between fifty and a hundred years behind. This is closely related to the instability of government for long periods. Also, the 'siesta' mentality, which is so prevalent, has never been an economic stimulant.It's about time, don't you think?We see things through different eyes.A favorite trick of folks who wish to use statistics to bolster a position is to use a period that is sufficiently long so as to mask a number of years of poor performance by averaging them into a much longer period of good performance. So that you may not be suspected of such behavior, do us all a favor and take the forty year period you chose and divide it into four ten year periods; 1930-39, 1940-49, 1950-59, 1960-69. Then make your case.I won't embarrass you with the truth.Does the term 'lag' mean anything to you?Yes, I know. However, if you apply yourself diligently, one of these days, you may figure it out.

In the meantime, why not review the current economic indicators and tell us which ones are pointing up and which are pointing down.
Most of this is utter nonsense, and we could discuss most of it elsewhere, but there is one thing I find especially concerning, and it is what this whole argument has become: how can you find cutting taxes and then proposing record spending smart economic policy? Through this debate I realize that you, unlike most people, have no ideas of your own, but rather you have total faith in your hero, GW Bush. Even when he proposes something so insane as spending increasingly while cutting taxes, you support him! Unbelievable! This will increase the debt obviously, and will create a burden that my generation will have to deal with.
If you choose to stick with this pure and simple stance of ignoring everything I wrote, and refusing to respond to the requests I have made, then everyone will realize that your argument has run out of both facts and steam.

Here is a second chance. Will you take it and prove me wrong?

1. A favorite trick of folks who wish to use statistics to bolster a position is to use a period that is sufficiently long so as to mask a number of years of poor performance by averaging them into a much longer period of good performance. So that you may not be suspected of such behavior, do us all a favor and take the forty year period you chose and divide it into four ten year periods; 1930-39, 1940-49, 1950-59, 1960-69. Then make your case.


2. .... why not review the current economic indicators and tell us which ones are pointing up and which are pointing down.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Fantasea said:
You just demolished the argument of the socialist-lib-dems who are struggling mightily to bring down the President.

The administration inherited a budding recession followed by the 9-11 blow to the economy followed by the expenses associated with the Middle East. Things looked bleak and the Dems were ecstatic.

The administration took the necessary action to spur the economy and the economy responded. It continues to rise. Revenues continue to rise. Things are looking good and the Dems are having a coronary.

Sorry to disagree again, but a recession is defined as two quarters of negative growth.

These two quarters happened under the Bush administration, according to many learned and respected economists. Yes, the economy was slowing at the end of Clinton's term, but it was not in a recession. But go ahead, blame Clinton if it makes you feel better.

As far as our economy today...we're in big trouble.

Bush is using his spend, spend, spend policy to attempt to buy a momentary prosperity, while mortgaging the future of our children.

It is our trade deficit and our ever weakening dollar that could very well cause our nation to collapse.

As a quick example....China sells far more of their goods to us, then we sell to China.
We pay China for their goods with US dollars, and China turns around and takes our dollars and buys real estate, treasury bonds and stocks in our country.

Because of this, China knows the U.S. is a paper tiger when it comes to Taiwan. China can bring us to our knees without firing a single shot by simply using the dreaded word...."sell."

If China sold it's stocks and bonds in U.S. companies, our economy could very well collapse...this could spell the beginning of the end.

If our dollar is worth nothing, we're doomed, and under Bush's lack of fiscal intelligence, we face an ever increasing and growing threat.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hoot said:
As far as our economy today...we're in big trouble.

Not true. Your anecdotal evidence is not proof. Our economy is in nowhere near as much debt as it has been in the past, including the 90's.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Hoot said:
Sorry to disagree again, but a recession is defined as two quarters of negative growth.

These two quarters happened under the Bush administration, according to many learned and respected economists. Yes, the economy was slowing at the end of Clinton's term, but it was not in a recession. But go ahead, blame Clinton if it makes you feel better.
So what you are saying is the the economy was on the skids on Inauguration Day. And that wasn't Clinton's fault, but Bush's. And that makes sense to you. Right?
As far as our economy today...we're in big trouble.

Bush is using his spend, spend, spend policy to attempt to buy a momentary prosperity, while mortgaging the future of our children.

It is our trade deficit and our ever weakening dollar that could very well cause our nation to collapse.

As a quick example....China sells far more of their goods to us, then we sell to China.
We pay China for their goods with US dollars, and China turns around and takes our dollars and buys real estate, treasury bonds and stocks in our country.

Because of this, China knows the U.S. is a paper tiger when it comes to Taiwan. China can bring us to our knees without firing a single shot by simply using the dreaded word...."sell."

If China sold it's stocks and bonds in U.S. companies, our economy could very well collapse...this could spell the beginning of the end.

If our dollar is worth nothing, we're doomed, and under Bush's lack of fiscal intelligence, we face an ever increasing and growing threat.
Well, then, don't you think it's about time that the Democrats started supporting the initiatives to further improve the economy so that revenues would increase and the deficit could be reduced?

I've never come across an economist who believed that a nation could tax itself out of a recession. Have you?

On the other hand, every recession we've ever endured ended when the administration instituted economic policies that spurred business activity which produced jobs which increased revenues. Do you disagree?
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Fantasea said:
Hoot said:
So what you are saying is the the economy was on the skids on Inauguration Day. And that wasn't Clinton's fault, but Bush's. And that makes sense to you. Right?
Well, then, don't you think it's about time that the Democrats started supporting the initiatives to further improve the economy so that revenues would increase and the deficit could be reduced?

I've never come across an economist who believed that a nation could tax itself out of a recession. Have you?

On the other hand, every recession we've ever endured ended when the administration instituted economic policies that spurred business activity which produced jobs which increased revenues. Do you disagree?

I'm not talking about increasing taxes, but decreasing the spending.

Our Defense Appropriations Bill, passed last Summer, I believe has 12.2 billion dollars worth of pork..pork that has nothing to do with the defense of our nation. WWW.taxpayer.com

The Associated Press has an article today where the U.S. accuses many nations of unfair trade barriers.

(Please make sure you're sitting down before reading the next paragraph. I don't want to be responsible for pulling your feeding tube if you conservatives go into shock.)

I applaud Bush for speaking out on Wednesday and naming 61 nations that have significant trade barriers that harm U.S. manufacturers and farmers.

I'll appaud Bush again if he brings these cases before the WTO ( World Trade Organization) and does something about nations like China (and Japan) that are deliberately breaking promises and violating WTO rules...theft of American movies, computer software and other goods..etc...blah blah blah.

China has a habit of undervalueing their currency by as much as 40%, giving them a tremendous competitive advantage.

Unfortunately, as I said in my last post, China has the power to bring us to our knees by simply threatening to "sell."

With a trade deficit of 617 billion last year, I'm glad the President is finally speaking out...now it remains to see if he will do anything about it?

This is why I cannot feel optimistic about the economy...despite the good day on Wall Street yesterday.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm sorry...that may be the wrong link? I can't seem to find the American site?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Hoot said:
Fantasea said:
I'm not talking about increasing taxes, but decreasing the spending.

Our Defense Appropriations Bill, passed last Summer, I believe has 12.2 billion dollars worth of pork..pork that has nothing to do with the defense of our nation. WWW.taxpayer.com

The Associated Press has an article today where the U.S. accuses many nations of unfair trade barriers.

(Please make sure you're sitting down before reading the next paragraph. I don't want to be responsible for pulling your feeding tube if you conservatives go into shock.)

I applaud Bush for speaking out on Wednesday and naming 61 nations that have significant trade barriers that harm U.S. manufacturers and farmers.

I'll appaud Bush again if he brings these cases before the WTO ( World Trade Organization) and does something about nations like China (and Japan) that are deliberately breaking promises and violating WTO rules...theft of American movies, computer software and other goods..etc...blah blah blah.

China has a habit of undervalueing their currency by as much as 40%, giving them a tremendous competitive advantage.

Unfortunately, as I said in my last post, China has the power to bring us to our knees by simply threatening to "sell."

With a trade deficit of 617 billion last year, I'm glad the President is finally speaking out...now it remains to see if he will do anything about it?

This is why I cannot feel optimistic about the economy...despite the good day on Wall Street yesterday.
Don't think, for a minute, that I agree with everything the Administration does. I don't.

However, as I consider my points of agreement and disagreement, I find that the preponderance lies on the side of agreement. Too many folks, I think, are looking for an absolute -- as if the only passing grade in school was 100%.
 
Top Bottom