John Kerry's Economy!!! (1 Viewer)

[gordontravels]

I know, I know. President Clinton isn't THE president anymore so I shouldn't mention him. Ok. This thread isn't about him anyway.

And..... I know John Kerry lost the election and I shouldn't mention him again either but..... This section of the forum is "Today's News" and that's what I've got. I think some of that news has something to do with our former and now losing presidential candidate. I'm sure some will agree and some won't.

I remember John Kerry's French side. How he went to confer with President Chirac before the elections. Don't need to give you a link here because it was widely reported by our mass media just who absolutely loved the very thought that Senator Kerry would go visit with the Euro-Libs who didn't like President Bush.

For John Kerry it was like going home. He was educated in France and with France in mind, he had talked during the campaign how we not only needed to work better with our "partners" in Europe but also look at their social conditions, i.e., family leave, 5 to 6 week paid vacation times for workers and essentially, cradle to grave care for those who didn't contribute to the workforce or the taxation used to support them.

Chirac and his Liberal Party had a crushing defeat when the French people rejected the EU Constitution overwhelmingly. The over 500 page document, huge compared to ours, took money from some countries and gave it to others along with telling you when you could walk your dog. It was too much and after France and Denmark rejected it, it went away. Poor President Chirac. Approval in the low 20's and that's from his own people.

Now to the recent news. John Kerry touted the French economy with it's social spending and anti business rules as a model for us. Here's what he got:

From Insee, the official French statistics agency, last Friday:

The French economy grew just 0.1% in the second quarter of 2005. The forecsast for the quarter was for 0.3%, quite modest at that. Growth in the overall EU was 0.3 for the quarter. Insee says the French economy may get to 1.5% growth for the year. Our growth rate is well over 4% under Kerry - SORRY - President Bush.

Why? Why is this the case in France?

It's lack of confidence in the economy by the French people themselves. There is no enthusiasm for consumer spending. But why? Chronically high unemployment numbers (a new French term). Unemployment for those under 25 stands at 23.3%. Unemployment for all the 18 to 30 year olds is at 40%.

Noted French Sociologist Olivier Galland is quoted as saying, "a cultural gap is opening up between the young French people and the rest of the country's society". "[Those] 18-to-30-year-olds have an image of a rigid, authoritarian country lacking flexibility," he said. "They are looking for a more flexible hiring system ... and they head for those countries where the culture of little jobs is more developed."

Where are these young dissatified, dissolutioned, disemployed French citizens going to improve their lives? Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the UNITED STATES. Hey, why not go where economic conditions are 4 or 5 times better.

I, along with the French people, think the French Government sucks. I like the French people. They who aren't asked what they think of us by our media. We are told what they think of us by our media.

I read last year that some Americans walking the streets of Paris wore tee shirts with the Canadian Maple Leaf prominently on display so the waiter wouldn't confuse their use of english with someone from Indiana which could lead to the cook spitting in their soup. Our media loved that story but you had to hunt our media to find the French people reacting to it in horror. Never, they said, would they do such a thing; they love Americans. Wonder how many will end up in Massachusettes? :duel

 

[gordontravels]

Well Gordon? I think you did quite a bit of investigation to come up with this post and I'd like to thank you for pointing out some salient points.

You're welcome Gordon. :duel

 

[Gideon]

I wont lie, I havent heard too much about these "issues" at all.
But they seem like good points and so far Im with you on this article.

 

[cnredd]

I agree with both gordons also...:2wave:

 

[Navy Pride]

I agree with both gordons also...:2wave:

Hear Hear, me too:good_job:

 

[gordontravels]

He is something isn't he? And just look at those French Government Liberal Spend It All And Get More From The Folks While Giving Their Kids The Incentive To Leave Home, Hamlet and Country And Go To America - While these guys that run the country can't and don't provide for their own citizens. That is the classic difference between "Tax and Spend" and "Tax and Spend and Give Some Back". When you give tax cuts (Democrats tremble) to the people they spend it at Wal-Mart or on gas or on better pet food or on a new car or on a new TV.

John Kerry was so sure the EU had what it takes and that they couldn't take President Bush so we needed him but now we don't have him and the EU is crumbling while the United States is growing due to what the New York Times calls the "unexpected" windfall for our economy from the Bush Tax Cuts that they used to say would kill us.

I like Gordon. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

There is also trouble for President Bush in our economy. Nearly everything in our economy is near booming with higher housing prices and still low inflation.

One of the main things that has revived our economy are the Tax Cuts that President Bush fought for and won from Congress. The Democrats and the liberal groups that opposed him had a non-stop campaign with everything from the damage the Tax Cuts would do to our country to their low of how stupid President Bush was. They were wrong and now our economy proves that they were wrong.

I've never really worried about deficits at the federal level because they can be financed and much of that finance comes from foreign investors. To prove how strong our economy is, those foreign investors invested record amounts of money in our government even when we had some of the lowest interest rates in approximately 40 years. This was a safe investment for them as well as us. On the federal level when we run a deficit the Fed has the ability to simply issue more money. This is done by selling Treasury notes.

The best federal insturment for investment right now is the Treasury Bill, preferably short term. Your checking account may pay you .34% but a Money Market in short term treasury bills is paying near 2.60 right now and it will go higher. 6 or 7 times the interest makes a difference.

Problem is that we are depending on the price of homes to continue to go up, the price of cars to keep coming down and interest rates to remain low. Interest rates are going up and they have to. This is not only to give investors incentive to keep and invest in more. This also will cool some markets like real estate that is appreciating at a pace that can't be sustained. Better to slow the growth of prices than to possibly see the bubble burst like the DotComs did under President Clinton.

Gasoline in July alone was up 6.1% according to government figures. They say energy prices were up 14.2% at the end of July over July last year. I don't think energy prices have hit our economy nearly as hard as they will. Just wait til winter when heating oil becomes a problem.

Gasoline is up and not because of supply and demand for oil. There is plenty of oil. Environmentalists are the real reason. There hasn't been a new refinery built in this country for nearly 25 years. Do you think our energy consumption has gone up in those 25 years? Even if BP or Exon wanted to build a refinery they would face 7 to 10 years of legal hassle before they might even be able to start construction. It's better for them to charge us $3.00 a gallon than pay the legal system money they might not get back.

For those who want to Blame Bush - be glad that Kerry or Al Gore wasn't elected. :duel

 

[cnredd]

For those who want to Blame Bush - be glad that Kerry or Al Gore wasn't elected.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/B]:duel

I've ALWAYS said that...

Certain people believe that there was flowers and happy trees and blue skys until Bush made the oath; then it became dark and gloomy, and will remain so until a Democrat gains power...then it will be automatically "peachy keen" again...Doesn't work that way...

Bush was handed FAR more work then Clinton did...All Clinton had to do was stand back and watch the reaping that occured due to the sowing of the Reagan/Bush41 era...Clinton never had his hands full the way Bush43 does(economically, that is)...

Some people don't understand that the economy was tanking when he took office...His job was to "stop the bleeding" which was done through his tax cuts...Gore, then Kerry would've repealed this and we'd end up in the same position we were in at the end of the 90s...tanking...

We MIGHT have continued to have a surplus under Gore/Kerry...But when the government becomes richer at the cost of the taxpayer, the economy would've been in serious jeopardy...

 

[gordontravels]

I've ALWAYS said that...

Certain people believe that there was flowers and happy trees and blue skys until Bush made the oath; then it became dark and gloomy, and will remain so until a Democrat gains power...then it will be automatically "peachy keen" again...Doesn't work that way...

Bush was handed FAR more work then Clinton did...All Clinton had to do was stand back and watch the reaping that occured due to the sowing of the Reagan/Bush41 era...Clinton never had his hands full the way Bush43 does(economically, that is)...

Some people don't understand that the economy was tanking when he took office...His job was to "stop the bleeding" which was done through his tax cuts...Gore, then Kerry would've repealed this and we'd end up in the same position we were in at the end of the 90s...tanking...

We MIGHT have continued to have a surplus under Gore/Kerry...But when the government becomes richer at the cost of the taxpayer, the economy would've been in serious jeopardy...

I watched the election campaign in 1992 when the Democrats ran over and over "Read my lips.....". I voted with my pocket book not understanding that the Democrats gave President G.H.W. Bush no choice but to raise taxes with their control of Congress. No new taxes won't be used again simply because one side or the other can effect it if they have power or gain power at the time.

President Clinton and the Democrat controlled Congress then passed the largest tax increase in history in 1994; over 560 billion dollars. Problem was when the Democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994 along comes 1995 and the tax increase can't be spent. Republicans did their Contract With America and stopped the Democrat spending. Instant surplus. Too bad they don't adhere to the same good stewardship today. Republicans are more like Democrats every day in their spending habits.

It's going to be an interesting winter. What if the summer driving fuel prices don't come down? How are the northerners going to cope with fuel oil prices? Everyone including Wal-Mart along with the general public are seeing higher utility prices. You can buy a new car cheaper but it's a gas guzzler SUV with a nice slash on the price tag. A year or two and your savings are burned into new polution. People making less than 35k a year are skipping the frills and sticking to necessity. Housing is hot while interest rates are going up.

Although this isn't a Democrat or Republican thing right now, especially since the tax cuts are reality, there are those who want to blame. President Bush has so close to nothing to do with gas prices that you can laugh at those who seek to blame him. The war in Iraq causes higher gas prices? Someone says that I say, "Uninformed, uneducated, position undone!" Gas prices? Bush Administration's fault - 2%; Sierra Club's fault - 90%. You have to ask, "Why didn't the Clinton Administration do anything about energy for 8 years?"

Want gas? Go make some. :duel

 

[SKILMATIC]

I thought I would never say this but Gordon you have truly out done yourself. Your talking points memos on this very thread have been outstandingly put.

I agree with this fully.

Keep up this very good work.

I think its about time someone literaly put it into retrospect for people to understand on both sides.

Thanks gordon for a masterful thread.

 

[gordontravels]

I thought I would never say this but Gordon you have truly out done yourself. Your talking points memos on this very thread have been outstandingly put.

I agree with this fully.

Keep up this very good work.

I think its about time someone literaly put it into retrospect for people to understand on both sides.

Thanks gordon for a masterful thread.

Well ok. So what do you want. :duel lil weird

 

[Hoot]

Nice of all you republicans to pat each other on the back and praise Reagan and Bush for this economy...or was that the first Bush we should thank?

The truth is, Clinton's tax increase was directed at the richest 1% of Americans. Clinton provided tax relief to middle and lower income families.

Maybe Bush is enjoying the Clinton economy? After all, most of you are still crediting Reagan for our economy today, eventhough Reagan RAISED TAXES and practically spent our nation into the poor house, just as this current president is doing.

The truth will set you free....

http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Accomplishments/additional.html

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well ok. So what do you want. lil weird

I dont know how my post was weird but ok.

If you want me to put it in laymans terms...

I agree with you. Is that less wierd? :2wave:

 

[AlbqOwl]

Nice of all you republicans to pat each other on the back and praise Reagan and Bush for this economy...or was that the first Bush we should thank?

The truth is, Clinton's tax increase was directed at the richest 1% of Americans. Clinton provided tax relief to middle and lower income families.

Maybe Bush is enjoying the Clinton economy? After all, most of you are still crediting Reagan for our economy today, eventhough Reagan RAISED TAXES and practically spent our nation into the poor house, just as this current president is doing.

The truth will set you free....

http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Accomplishments/additional.html

Well my family suffered in the Carter years, thrived in the Reagan years, did okay in the Bush the Elder's years until his idiotic consent to a major tax increase drove the economy into deep recession. The Clinton tax cut hit every senior citizen earning $30,000 or more, thank you very much. I know some of you think that's rich, but it really doesn't qualify do you think? A heavy tax on the rich via luxury items just about put the manufacturers of those items out of business. Most of the employees of those industries were not what anybody would call rich, and they sure weren't rich after they lost their jobs.

Reagan's tax cuts triggered record peacetime growth and doubled the GNP and U.S. treasury revenues. The only trouble was, the Democratically controlled Congress spent one third again the amount of revenues coming in and that triggered record deficits.

Bush the Second's tax cuts are having the same effect. And Congress is spending it per usual.

The problem is not with the president, but with a Congress who can't seem to bring themselves to say no to anybody. (Okay GWB could veto more of this stuff, but trust me on this: if he did he would be accused of obstructing the will of Congress or something.)

I suggest more sternly worded letters to our respective elected representatives.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well my family suffered in the Carter years, thrived in the Reagan years, did okay in the Bush the Elder's years until his idiotic consent to a major tax increase drove the economy into deep recession. The Clinton tax cut hit every senior citizen earning $30,000 or more, thank you very much. I know some of you think that's rich, but it really doesn't qualify do you think? A heavy tax on the rich via luxury items just about put the manufacturers of those items out of business. Most of the employees of those industries were not what anybody would call rich, and they sure weren't rich after they lost their jobs.

Reagan's tax cuts triggered record peacetime growth and doubled the GNP and U.S. treasury revenues. The only trouble was, the Democratically controlled Congress spent one third again the amount of revenues coming in and that triggered record deficits.

Bush the Second's tax cuts are having the same effect. And Congress is spending it per usual.

The problem is not with the president, but with a Congress who can't seem to bring themselves to say no to anybody. (Okay GWB could veto more of this stuff, but trust me on this: if he did he would be accused of obstructing the will of Congress or something.)

I suggest more sternly worded letters to our respective elected representatives.

I hear angels singing. :applaud :yt :clap: :cheers:

 

[AlbqOwl]

I hear angels singing. :applaud :yt :clap

Well thanks, I think. I hope that doesn't mean I sound old enough to be on my way to meet them. :lol:

 

[vergiss]

Where are these young dissatified, dissolutioned, disemployed French citizens going to improve their lives? Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the UNITED STATES. Hey, why not go where economic conditions are 4 or 5 times better.

WTF? Yeah, France is just such an impoverished, third-world nation. :lol: Especially compared to New Zealand.

Hilarious.

 

[gordontravels]

WTF? Yeah, France is just such an impoverished, third-world nation. :lol: Especially compared to New Zealand.

Hilarious.

New Zealand is one of the destinations of the younger French because the economy is creating jobs. The information I posted was from Insee which is the equivilant of our Federal Reserve so these are the French Government's figures. Thought I made that plain in my post; not an opinion from me but actual figures provided by the French Government.

As to the comments about the younger French workers leaving the country; this is simply a count on passport and incoming visas. I don't recall the terms "impoverished third world nation" being used but I do know an annual growth rate of 1.5% and 40% unemployment among 18 to 30 year olds will cause reaction.

And sorry SKILMATIC, just having fun. Don't want others to think you and I are close in any way. Like the guy what's his name, mister label maker... oh yes.... Hoot, good name. Calls me a Republican because I post something. Devining Rods R Us. Another weak retort from one that hasn't read much from me. Republican, that'll be the day. Thought the green stuff on top of our pond was Republicans and Democrats. Oh well, label are made by those who want it easy.

As for ignoring what our economy is doing and not giving the sitting President credit? It would only be fair to do that to Reagan and Clinton as well. It true that things that happen 20 years ago can have their effect today but the purpose of my original post was to show what is actually going on in France and why President Chirac's days are numbered. He's on his way out and the French people are showing documented dissatisfaction with both the liberal government and the French economy.

Oh and Hoot. I voted for President Clinton and his tax increase hit me hard. Didn't know I was 1% of anything and thanks for letting me know I was or am rich. I think you're right. Being able to type these words in a country like this makes us all rich. Just had to pay because of Clinton though. :duel

 

[AlbqOwl]

I just noticed that I wrote "Clinton tax cut" in a previous post. Man that is wishful thinking to the extreme. It should have read 'tax increase'.

Note to the younger ones who haven't taken a good economics class yet: in my opinion, there is no way to tax the rich substantially more without hurting the poor. The only fair taxation is across the board with everybody paying the same percentage except for a few truly poor who should be able to opt out.

 

[Iriemon]

There is also trouble for President Bush in our economy. Nearly everything in our economy is near booming with higher housing prices and still low inflation.

One of the main things that has revived our economy are the Tax Cuts that President Bush fought for and won from Congress. The Democrats and the liberal groups that opposed him had a non-stop campaign with everything from the damage the Tax Cuts would do to our country to their low of how stupid President Bush was. They were wrong and now our economy proves that they were wrong.

I've never really worried about deficits at the federal level because they can be financed and much of that finance comes from foreign investors. To prove how strong our economy is, those foreign investors invested record amounts of money in our government even when we had some of the lowest interest rates in approximately 40 years. This was a safe investment for them as well as us. On the federal level when we run a deficit the Fed has the ability to simply issue more money. This is done by selling Treasury notes.
:duel

Oh, yeah, the tax cuts are great. It is wonderful to fund our economic growth by borrowing $2.2 trillion (and counting) from the next generation of Americans, and robbing the SS trust fund ("gosh, there are only IOUs in here!") while they are at it.

And the tax cuts they are soooo necessary. I mean it wasn't like we had any economic growth in the 90s under that burdensome tax rate Clinton had had.

And while it is true that gross interest on the Republican debt was only $320 billion last year, we borrowed another $600 billion, so it doesn't matter! So don't worry about borrowing money, *we* don't have to pay it back! It's the next generation's problem! So more tax deferrments, err, cuts for everyone (except those poorer workers who only pay social security)! Yippeee!

Typical attitude of the "pass-the-buck" Republicans. :thumbdown

 

[Iriemon]

I just noticed that I wrote "Clinton tax cut" in a previous post. Man that is wishful thinking to the extreme. It should have read 'tax increase'.

Note to the younger ones who haven't taken a good economics class yet: in my opinion, there is no way to tax the rich substantially more without hurting the poor. The only fair taxation is across the board with everybody paying the same percentage except for a few truly poor who should be able to opt out.

Note to younger ones who have not taken economics yet: About the only folks who think a guy earning minimum wage at $10k a year and trying to raise a family ought to pay the same 25% of his income that Bill Gates should are those who are wealthy, because they desparately need to be taxed less so they can buy that bigger yacht and jet.

 

[Iriemon]

Well my family suffered in the Carter years, thrived in the Reagan years, did okay in the Bush the Elder's years until his idiotic consent to a major tax increase drove the economy into deep recession. The Clinton tax cut hit every senior citizen earning $30,000 or more, thank you very much. I know some of you think that's rich, but it really doesn't qualify do you think? A heavy tax on the rich via luxury items just about put the manufacturers of those items out of business. Most of the employees of those industries were not what anybody would call rich, and they sure weren't rich after they lost their jobs.

Reagan's tax cuts triggered record peacetime growth and doubled the GNP and U.S. treasury revenues. The only trouble was, the Democratically controlled Congress spent one third again the amount of revenues coming in and that triggered record deficits.

Bush the Second's tax cuts are having the same effect. And Congress is spending it per usual.

The problem is not with the president, but with a Congress who can't seem to bring themselves to say no to anybody. (Okay GWB could veto more of this stuff, but trust me on this: if he did he would be accused of obstructing the will of Congress or something.)

I suggest more sternly worded letters to our respective elected representatives.

I hear angels singing. :applaud :yt :clap: :cheers:

I hear history being revised.

What Clinton tax cut? Taxes were increased in 1993, which is the only reason this country is not couple trillion more in debt.

The luxury tax was passed by Bush I, not Clinton.

The Democrats were responsible for spending increases in the 80s? You have never heard of Reagan's military buildup? You know, the one the Reagan fans say won the cold war? Do you think that was free?

I agree Bush the Second's tax cuts are having the same effect as Reagan's: We are again living in the time of massive borrowing under a "pass-the-buck" Republican Regime.

You forgot to add the word "Republican" in front of "And Congress is spending it per usual." And in fact, with George "I didn't know I could veto" Bush riding herd, spending has increased twice as fast in the 2000s as in the 90s under Clinton.

 

[cnredd]

I hear history being revised.

What Clinton tax cut? Taxes were increased in 1993, which is the only reason this country is not couple trillion more in debt.

You missed this post...

I just noticed that I wrote "Clinton tax cut" in a previous post. Man that is wishful thinking to the extreme. It should have read 'tax increase'.

 

[Iriemon]

You missed this post...

OK, That corrects that item.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Note to younger ones who have not taken economics yet: About the only folks who think a guy earning minimum wage at $10k a year and trying to raise a family ought to pay the same 25% of his income that Bill Gates should are those who are wealthy, because they desparately need to be taxed less so they can buy that bigger yacht and jet.

Note to younger ones who have not taken a good course in economics yet: work at minimum wage jobs as necessary to get experience, learn a trade, develop a work ethic, and establish a track record and otherwise don't do drugs, don't get pregnant, stay in school, get an education, and be ready to support a family. The minimum wage was always intended as a training threshhold and was never intended to support a family.

Otherwise, will anybody point me to a guy who is making $10K a year who offers jobs to other people? Who buys high ticket items that need other people to make them, repair them, service them? Who invests his money to help other businesses grow or saves his money so that banks have the cash to loan to others who need it? Bill Gates is fantastically rich, yes. He also has created an industry that provides well paying jobs to thousands upon thousands of others. It might make us feel righteous relieving more loot from Mr. Gates, but the guy somewhere down the line who takes a pay cut or gets laid off would probably just as soon Mr. Gates be allowed to keep more of what he earns.

John Kennedy understood it. Ronald Reagan understood it. And George W. Bush understands that any attempt to soak the rich with more taxes diminishes the ability or alters the behavior of the rich with a direct corresponding negative consequence to the economy and the unrich.