The US Economy

(Now I think the guy really HAS gone bonkers.)

Would you agree that we are better off with a republican President economy wise? (Reagan/Old Bush)

Would you, pretty please with sugar on top, say that the Bush tax cuts were unnecessary, then you can claim anything you want about Clinton.

The claim won't be true, but have at it.

Bill didn't get a single Republican vote for his economic plan, the GOP'ers thought they'd go home and beat the "he raised taxes' drum, but by the time they got home the economy had created over six millions jobs and wiped out the Reagan-Bush deficits, so they had to fall back on the regular Republician tactic of the Newt years, they spluttered about scandals and investigations and wrong-doings, none of which turned out to be true, (yeah, yeah, except for the sex lie -hang me,) (the Reagan administration still holds the record for most convictions) but if you think about the lies the Republicans spread during the Clinton years one would think there actually was eight years of financial mismanagement too. Do they use actual soap when they brainwash their followers??

Joe

No one named Reagan or Bush has done anything positive my personal circumstances. The Clinton era was boom time for me, both in terms of market investments and in terms of real estate. Because those investments were in pretty solid stuff, I've come through scorched but not aflame. Nothing but bad has come to my finances from the current administration -- and no matter what happens in 2004, I think the legacy is going to be grim financially.

Bush II has been the biggest of big spenders that I can remember -- shockingly bad. Perhaps we can finally dispense with the myth of Republican fiscal prudence...

There are differing schools of thought, Joe. I subscribe to one which is counter to yours. Naturally, I'm given to the notion mine is the superior position, but I acknowledge the proponents of views counter to mine may be in full possession of their faculties and well informed on the issue. Perhaps thats another way in which you and I differ.

Oh, and as for the record of official wrongdoing, I suggest you look into the Grant Administration, or any of those through the ensuing Robber Barron Era. Relatively, given both smaller government and smaller population as appropriate to the time, they were spectacular. Even if most of 'em were Republicans.

See, that's what troubles me -- these comparisons. Are we supposed to be ccontent because one of Bush's most stalwart supporters believes his term is somewhat better than the Robber Baron era?

You're welcome to believe that if you wish, though I believe that such a belief would entail a thorough missapprehension not only of the argument but of the issue, as well as a mischaracterization of what was written. Others may believe as they wish. I believe that if The Current Administration, which consists of several hundreds more elected representatives than just the chief executive, fails to discharge the will of The Electorate, it will cease to prosper. Presently, The Republican Party, and by extension, The Current Administration, shows little sign of decline.

Its not how loudly one objects, nor how or vigorously nor pointedly, but how many object sufficiently to lawfully effect remedial action. The people get the government they vote for, and that government is much, much large thanr, and more individually responsible to, The Electorate. No one man, no one Administration, is responsible for the state of affairs. It takes a big team, with lots of support.

It is kind of odd, isn't it? I could give a ratass if Grant, one hundred and thirty years ago, was a weasel, but the right seems to love to use those "if you think we're bad what about Jack the Ripper" comparisons. I also love those 'Well, our deficits are huge but they are a lower percentage of the economy than the deficits of 1983.' Note that they don't mention the Reagan great gulps of red.

Timber: well, yass, there are schools of thought. We liberals think that government ought to use it's powers to aid the less powerful, conservatives seek to use government to entrench the power of the already powerful. Liberals think government can influence the strength of an economy, conservatives scoff at such a notion until and unless they can reduce the tax basis of it's wealthiest supporters. I leave to you to choose the group with the fewest phonies.

Nonsense. Conservatives feel the function of government is to provide and ensure equal opportunity, not equal result. The individual is to be neither guaranteed nor denied success, but rather the greatest possible number of individuals should be encouraged and enabled to acheive success both collectively and individually.


Poppycock. It is in the overall best interest of capital to promote and ensure the broadest and most financially capable market possible for its products. The better the producers may affordably be paid, the more they can consume. The ideal economy is one able to effect and capable of sustaining its own growth.


I leave to you to choose the group with the fewest phonies.

Conservatives (well, those of my stripe, anyway) think that government ought to stick to its charter and leave the people free to prosper as befits their talents and the energy they put forth, and that doing so best helps the less powerful to become more powerful (to use your twisted terminology).

Conservatives think the government can positively influence the strength of the economy by leaving more money in the economy. Higher income taxes reduce the velocity of the dollar, lower income taxes increase it. A higher velocity of the dollar means more business, more growth, higher GDP, more jobs...

Scrat -- How do those welfare policies embraced by the Republicans (oh, for example, bailing out airlines, not allow bidding for defense contracts, subsidizing corporate farming over small farming -- and on and on) "leave people free to prosper as befits their talents and the energy they put forth, and that doing so best helps the less powerful to become more powerful"?

You guys want your cake and eat it too. Just don't ask us to believe you or credit you with good intentions.

Self-interest intentions -- there's always an underlining reason why someone is one way or another on an issue. To Hell with everyone else.

You got it, LW

I would take such a statement to be a mischaracterization of reality of precisely the sort which weakens the voice of those with legitimate concerns ... and I do not deny there are mountains of legitimate concerns. I just don't see them being addressed in legitimate manner by "The Activists". That could also be nothing more than a misperception on my part, and on the part of the growing majority of folks who are dismissing "The Democrat Message".

Forget about the liberal/conservative republican/democrat arguement!

What I would like to know is are you better off during the Clinton Years or during the Reagan/Older Bush Years?

Do you think you are better off during the Clinton Years or the younger Bush Years?

Better off now, Ricardo. That's on a personal level and probably has exactly nothing to do with the respective residents of the White House.

Let's see; I retired in 1998. Had enough retirement savings to live comfortably back then, and still have enough to live comfortably now. I know that many people lost their shirts in the stock market during the past three years. My brother-in-law started his dental practice more than five years before I even had my college degree, and he's still working, because he lost a bundle during the tech crash, and we're the same age. Have read many reports that many lost most of their retirement savings in the last couple of years, and when Enron and Worldcom went bust. Doing pretty good, considering.

at my work place, there's a bulletin board which displays all the economic reports. It's like reading a weather report that says there'll definitely be weather tomorrow. All these people do is hedge. Basically the only thing that can be gleaned from these reports is that "something" will happen in the future. And they get paid lots of money to say it.

I'd say I had highpoints and low points spread pretty evenly across about the past 10 Administrations. Most of each I'd attribute more to personal choice and consequence than to the direct effect of any politico-economic construct which may have pertained at any given time. On paper, anyway, I'm better off than at any time prior to 2001. I weigh more, and have less hair, too.

Quack quack, Timber. Ducking again?