"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."-- President Andrew Jackson - (1824)
ping
Were DOOOOOOOMMMMMED!
Willie, just screaming a lie over and over does NOT make it true. The only ones being rejected by the American People are YOU and the other Pat Buchannan Economic Isolationists.
Many of the points raised in this article were thoroughly debunked on another thread about a similar article a couple of days ago.
I seriously doubt that the American public has the slightest idea about this plan. I reject pilates although I really haven't a clue what it is.
Shouldn't there be a BARF ALERT added to the title?
ping
Drops in tax revenues as the cause of deficits? The 2001 recession was shallow? 2000 as the benchmark for taxes?
That certainly includes dissatisfaction on things other than the economy.
Is this a DNC press release?
its the offshoring, and what's happening with private sector wages & pensions that is giving rise to these poll numbers.
so where does the President give an economic speech on HSAs yesterday - Wendy's. That's just what we need, tell US auto workers that the cars they make need to be better, provide no support to restricting the coming onslaught of imported chinese subassemblies and cars, then give an economic speech at Wendy's.
Then they wonder why the poll numbers on the economy are not good.
Of course the terror attacks on 9/11, the war in Afganistan and the war in Iraq didn't have anything to do with the slow recovery. And neither did the corporate accounting scandals (Arthur Anderson, Enron, WorldCom).
If only Pat Buchanan was in charge of the economy! THEN our problems would be over.
*BUMP* !
You mean to tell me, conservatives aren't the only ones rejecting the big government Republicanism of PresBush and the GOP Congress?
>>>>Part of the problem with Bush administration stats is that they measure from the bottom of the 2001 recession rather than from the state of the economy before the recession. The recovery from the recession has actually been very slow, even though the recession was shallow. This is because the recession has masked some very negative structural changes in the economy which counter-cyclical policy – tax cuts, increases in government spending, and money creation by the Federal Reserve – is not designed to remedy.
If it wasn't for the three Bush tax cuts, just imagine where we'd be today. Having said that, things aren't so rosey on the domestic home front. For five years, Bush and the GOP Congress have advanced an agenda that ignores the conservative policy ideas of spending reductions and limited govt. Tax cuts are great, but without some serious spending cuts to properly balance fiscal matters, the tax cuts are vulnerable to some future Democrat POTUS, maybe a GOP POTUS, coming along and eliminating those tax cuts with he stroke of a pen. Then raising taxes at his/her discretion. In fact, I remember a POTUS named Clinton who did exactly that, back when he first took office. Bush41 ignored the Reagan agenda and then we got Clinton.
FRankly, I never expected to see Bush43 spend like a liberal and rubber stamp everything the GOP Congress handed him. Bush hasn't even had one single veto in his over five years in office.
(I,ve NEVER read that book.)
Actually, this fact reflects the slow -- but steady -- change in the nature of our Federal tax structure, as Federal revenes from our progressive income taxes decline and revenues from our regressive payroll taxes increase. At the rate we're going, we'll have a "flat tax" system in place in about 25 years.
The best part about it is that nobody will even realize it.
National Unemployment < 5%
Dow Jones > 11,000
National Inflation = 4%
Federal January Surplus of $20 billion
Things seem to be looking up.
"There has also been a lost of 209,000 private-sector white-collar supervisory positions in line with the loss of blue collar workers. These well-paying jobs have been replaced by lower-paying service sector jobs in health care, social work, education, and restaurants. Unemployment is low because people have to work to eat, so they take whatever jobs are available. Even so, since Labor Dept. stats do not count people who have been out of work for more than six months, the kind of unemployment that affects how people and families actually live is still high."
Sheer nonsense. If you look at the composition of the most recent jobs report for January, you will see that more than half the jobs created are in high paying sectors. More than 50% job creation in these areas indicates substantive job growth, not burger flipper jobs. The report also confirms that America is creating more than 30,000 new jobs, mostly in new-age industries, every week. Real wages are higher now than at the peak of the 1990s boom. This is no burger-flipper economy.
Further, the assumption that all service sector jobs are low paying is a leftist/liberal conceit with no bearing in economic reality. Service sector jobs are more than just beauticians and "social workers," but include attornies and finacial service professionals which are high paying jobs, as are the health care professional the dope who wrote this article thinks make minimum wage.
Also, this conceit of "there are a lot of people who have given up looking for jobs" is pure crap. That number is said by labor experts to be only another 1 percentage point over the official unemployment rate which is a static number in ANY economy no matter how good.
Most people who need jobs simply cannot afford to give up looking. I was unemployed for 2 yrs. during the "Clinton" boom and never gave up. I couldn't afford to. Most who do are second income earners. But to claim the number of those is "high" is simply not supported by the facts.
Finally, while anecdotal data is never that helpful, look around you? Do any of you really know anyone chronically unemployed who hasn't chosen to be? I don't know anyone other than a terminally ill friend who's unemployed. Again, I know that doesn't mean much but one can often measure the strength of the economy merely by seeing what's going on around them. From what I see, people are doing well. The stores are always packed with shoppers. New cars are all over the roads, etc.
Finally, what of the new fed. chair, and the old one, all speaking in glowing terms of the economy as well as most economists? Are they ALL missing something the leftist clown who wrote this article is the only one tuned in to? I doubt it.
What this article is is nothing more than a partisan hit piece meant to talk down the economy in time for the November mid-terms. Dems. know the strong economy will be a hinderance to them come November. This loser who wrote this braindead article is just part of the effort by Dems. to lie their way back into Congressional control.
"There has also been a lost of 209,000 private-sector white-collar supervisory positions in line with the loss of blue collar workers."
And by the way, many times that number of supervisory jobs have been created since 2003 more than erasing the 209,000 supervisory loss during the recent slow down. The guy who wrote this fails to mention that his number is a historical one, not an ongoing one, and is cancelled out by supervisory positions CREATED. We're just not all that stupid sir.
Also, an add-on comment to something else I said. Even accounting for the 1 percentage point of people who have exhausted unemployment benefits or given up looking, the unemployment rate is still quite low at 5.7% if you want to add in the 1 percentage point. Besides, that one percentage point is mitigated at least in part by the number of people who collect unemployment but were fired for cause. Many employers agree to allow an employee let go for cause to collect unemployment. I've seen this numerous times INCLUDING a woman I use to work with who was fired for stealing thousands of dollars by misusing a company credit card. Those people are on unemployment not out of economic displacement, but because of an over-indulgent employer.
DUMB ASS!
LLS