The US Economy

Tartarin, there's an old joke that goes "Its a downturn if you hear about job loss. Its a recession if you know someone who's lost their job. Its a depression if you've lost your job". No one denies there has been significant negative fiscal impact across a broad spectrum of society. However, US GDP grew 2.4% in 2002, and will see growth in excess of 3%, by even the most conservative of estimates, in '03. The outlook for '04 improves day by day. Get over it. The economy has.

0 Replies

Sounds great for those who have a big stake in the "improved economy." Particular those corporations which are making out like bandits.

What I have in view is a woman I know here who can no longer work because of an illness, has no medical insurance, can only get basic care from a clinic, has no home help, no meds (can't afford them).... Multiply that woman by millions, talk to them daily (there are plenty around us if we take off our rosy glasses), and the economy looks very different.

As for your broad spectrum of society, what about the report in the NYTimes a couple of days ago that luxury goods are selling well, way beyond expectations. Must be someone else buying them, from some other country, right? Our rich folks are suffering that "significant negative fiscal impact", if you're to be believed...

0 Replies

Tartarin, there are real problems for real people. No one denies that. Serious inequities abound. However, the class warfare scam just doesn't play.
You might not like the way things are, or the way they're developing, or the folks who are driving that development, or even the folks who have derived benefit from it. However, it is the way things are. If you wish to bring about change, propose and promote change-directed proactive initiatives. Complaining about an ill, perceived or real, is not working to resolve that problem. An example of proactive initiative would be the 15-to-none UN Security Couincil vote a few minutes ago to adopt the US Iraq Aid Resolution. Even The UN is getting with the program.

0 Replies

Timber: Not having medical care and help when you're ill is a "class warfare scam"? How?

You keep writing as though criticisms you disagree with are somehow out of sync, made by lazy people who don't do anything. The pro-active initiative you describe was made by civilized countries other than the US realizing there was going to be real trouble if they didn't get involved. The Bush administration, with its characteristic generosity, wanted all the bennies but didn't want to share the decision-making. That the admin is now obliged to share the decision making is, in fact, a real step forward, but perhaps not the one which will be touted in speeches and press conferences.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

You keep writing as though criticisms you disagree with are somehow out of sync, made by lazy people who don't do anything.

I'm often astounded by how much we have in common. Shocked

:wink:

0 Replies

Let's hope we don't get our 2nd ammendment rights trampled by these socialists as payback for them getting off their lazy asses to help. Did you know the U.N. is upset with private gun ownership in the U.S.? Yep folks. Someday you may not just see the blue hats and white jeeps on TV.

An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed one is a subject.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Scrat and Timber: The people opposing your positions in this discussion are likely those whose retirement funds or jobs have been more deeply and negatively affected than yours. When it comes to money, most of us speak from personal reality rather than economic theory -- or from the statements made by corporations and the politicians who support them.

I don't doubt that for a second in some cases. I am convinced that CI sees things as negatively as he does because he's been doubly damned; he's from California and in the travel industry. You'd be hard pressed to find a worse personal reality over the last few years.

But that wasn't my point. (Nor is it true that my personal situation is as rosy as my outlook on the economy.)

My point was that some people here clearly PREFER to think the worst about the economy. I suspect their doomsaying is politically motivated. The same people who refuse to acknowledge reality in the 2000 election outcome, in Clinton's many scandals, on environmental issues, etc. likewise simply refuse to acknowledge the clear signs of economic recovery. For these, any negative report is held up as proof that things are bad and getting worse, and any good report is tossed aside as meaningless.

0 Replies

Scrat -- I think that's the kind of viewpoint which provides you with an easy out. Perhaps taking the critics more seriously would be illuminating, instructive for you.

Recovery? Ye gods. And you use that word in the same sentence as Clinton's (Mr. Budget Surplus')name. Think again. Fell into a little trap of your own making there!

0 Replies

Quote:

Lucky is the president who gets his recession out of the way early. Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan presided over sharp economic downturns in their first terms, but could point to a year or two of declines in unemployment by the time they faced the voters again. Both coasted to re-election. Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H. W. Bush in 1992 were saddled with jobless rates that peaked only months before Election Day, and were tossed out of the White House, even though, in Mr. Bush's case, the overall economy was recovering nicely.

For the current President Bush, a keen student of what happened to his father, the prospects for re-election may rest to a substantial degree on whether the economic woes of his first three years in office give way fairly quickly to a palpable sense that prosperity has returned, or soon will.

New York Times

Support of Bush goes hand-in-glove with the plaintive wails of "prosperity is just around the corner".

(And vice versa, of course.)

One thing's for certain: He's a little Post Toastie if it don't. Cool

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Scrat -- I think that's the kind of viewpoint which provides you with an easy out. Perhaps taking the critics more seriously would be illuminating, instructive for you.

Recovery? Ye gods. And you use that word in the same sentence as Clinton's (Mr. Budget Surplus')name. Think again. Fell into a little trap of your own making there!

Trap? lol

YOU fall into the trap of pretending that when I write SOME it means ALL. There are some who disagree with me on this who seem to be weighing all the data and coming to a different conclusion than I. Groovy. But a few consistently DENY any evidence that contradicts their pet point of view. Those are the ones who earn my contempt.

And you might want to take a short course in history and economics; Reagan and Bush I created the boom it took Clinton 7 years to kill.

"Mr. Budget Surplus"! ROFLMAO! Laughing

0 Replies

Scrat, Your generalizations about Reagan and Bush I's credit for the economy is misplaced at best. Presidents alone do not weal that much economic power. It takes the congress to approve most legislation that will affect the economy - however slightly. Private citizens create jobs, not the government.

0 Replies

Nice try, Scrat! Skewed vision, at best! Must hurt to see all those Republicans looking back nostalgically at the Clinton years.

0 Replies

Quote:

Reagan and Bush I created the boom it took Clinton 7 years to kill.

Scrat didn't miss out on those right-wing brainwash courses, I see.

0 Replies

It takes real chutzpah to actually say what Scrat has posted in a public place. It's also a lovely sign for the rest of us who notice the regularity with which Clinton gets blamed for what the right can't bear to admit is the fault of one of their own. They're in trouble, and Clinton-bashing is the life raft for their doubts and confusion.

Edward Hoagland writes in an article about dissent in the August Harper's: "Things are not going well, and patriotism is the last refuge not only of a scoundrel but of confusion also."

0 Replies

Administrations do effect the economic mood -- the Clinton witchhunt ending with virtually inconclusive results certainly put a pallor over the consumer's and investor's mind. Wonder who started that? Consumer confidence is an all important factor -- their willingness to buy. Trying to verbally coax them into buying in tough times is only an example of a politician's indefensible and unmitigated ego. One reason why I would rather see politics take its course with Leakgate rather than the other side start beating their drums of revenge. That's what has been worsened since Watergate -- poltical revenge. Can't completely say I blame them, however.

0 Replies

(Tit for Tat, and in the case of Clinton, we know where the tit was).

0 Replies

I shared elsewhere that my community is showing an economic resurgence. Several plants had closed in the last three/four years, and others had huge layoffs.

Three of the closed plants have reopened, and the workers laid off from several industries are being rehired. The local economy is booming, and sales are up locally.

I ran across this, and thought it was important to note. I think one of the reasons the US has surpassed other nations economically, and reached the Superpower status--is that we were able to take account of previous nations' successes and failures--and plan accordingly. For those who believe National Healthcare is such a lofty goal, and a workable proposition--please look at the following article.

Most people would jump at the idea of a national healthcare program, if they thought there was any way it would be sustainable.

(SORRY--GOT MY STORIES CROSSED-- THIS IS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY/RETIREMENT--NOT HEALTHCARE)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/981982.asp?0dm=N19MN

0 Replies

If you want governmental national healthcare, look at how our troops are being cared for at Ft. Stewart in Georgia, it is really efficient. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

The VA system. Rolling Eyes

It is always considered mean-spirited that the GOP tries to enable people to afford their own healthcare--while the noble Democrats push for National Healthcare--

Trust me. The kindness is pushing people away from reliance on the governmental morass! It kills.

0 Replies

Tartarin, et al --
Bleat on in your shrill little voices all you like; facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts created a huge boost to the economy, nearly doubling federal tax receipts (yes, he CUT taxes and the feds took in MORE--not less--money!). We had a mild dip in the middle of Bush I and then the boom really took hold IN THE FINAL 18 MONTHS OF BUSH I. (These are facts. You can deny them, in fact I know you will, since you care nothing for facts, but they are facts nonetheless.)

Our country's current economic woes began UNDER CLINTON. THIS IS ALSO A FACT THAT NO RATIONAL PERSON CAN DENY.

But what am I wasting my time for? If any of you cared to acknowledge these facts, you would have done so long before now. You'd rather parrot the absurd lies of the left and go to your graves ignorant and subservient to someone else's poorly-considered notion of the greater good.

I understand why you lie. I understand why you prefer fiction to the truth. I hope you can understand why that disgusts me. I hope others recognize that the magnitude of willful ignorance on the left may be the undoing of our vibrant free society some day.

The Soviet Union was built on the lies and falsehoods of the Communist party. That's the model for the Democrats. Lie to the people so they will vote for you, because the truth would drive them to make another choice.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know