It's the economy stupid!

Foxfyre wrote:

As far as Iraq goes, there are at least 50+ % of Americans who approved that operation.

Glad you use the past tense there, it makes your submission correct.

By now, of course, this is no longer true - or that is to say, the answer at least is disputable.

When asked variations of "Do you support or oppose the United States having taken military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein?", like Fox does, a majority still says they approve. Well, it does in the Fox poll - in the latest CBS poll its just a plurality.

But when asked variations of "All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?", like for example the Gallup, CBS and LATimes polls do, a majority now says it was not worth it.

See here for details.

Foxfyre wrote:

The quarrel is whether it was competently carried out, and as progress is made, the questions about that are slowly becoming fewer.

Could you substantiate that? I know you have pointed to the recent uptick in approval rates for Bush's handling of Iraq in the day-to-day Rasmussen Reports polls. But taking a slightly longer-term view than the week-on-week one, we can easily doublecheck (same link) that in the Gallup polls as well as the ABC/WaPo, LATimes, CBS, Newsweek and CNN/Time polls - no exception listed there, really - the percentage of respondents saying they disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq has been higher in this past month than in any month before. How does that line out with your assertion? Or are you saying that "progress is made" in Iraq only since this past couple of weeks?

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you think those of us who LIKE lower taxes and who think it PROPER to oppose terrorism and that Iraq was as good a place as any to fight it should just roll over and play dead because some of you don't like these things?

I don't think anyone here wants you to roll over and play dead, no. You're much too much fun to respond to, for one. Only interesting thing out there today, apparently <frowns>

0 Replies

Nimh, my comment about the quarrel being how the war is prosecuted is based on the fact that we're already there. Whether we should have gone is moot from a practical point of view though I do believe a plurality of Americans will still say it was the right thing to do.

Does a plurality think the war has been prosecuted as competently as it could have been? No. I certainly don't think so nor does the Bush administration. Rumsfield himself has admitted that it was a mistake to dismantle the Republican guard and send them home. If they had it to do over, they would have handled that much differently.

The verdict is still out on whether more troops should have been sent. Some of the military leaders (who are stateside) say yes. Some say no. Bush is on record as ready to send more troops any time the field commanders request them.

Just reading the Rasmussen polls, it seems to me that people are slowly becoming more optimistic about success in Iraq. I certainly am.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you think those of us who LIKE lower taxes and who think it PROPER to oppose terrorism and that Iraq was as good a place as any to fight it should just roll over and play dead because some of you don't like these things?

Sounds like a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. I suggest you choose ONE or the other as they are mutually exclusive in a fiscally sound run government. I always thought pay as you go was a conservative philosophy. It used to be "keep your hands out of my pockets". Now they are putting their hands in our kids pockets.

0 Replies

Do you realize Mesquite that we had a balanced budget for what, two years? Prior to that time we were running deficits, sometimes huge deficits, for all but one or two years since the great depression. And we've survived just fine.

I'll risk some debt to ensure that my grandchildren are less likely to be blown to smithereens in some shopping mall. The point is, lowering the tax rates has generated revenue. It worked for John Kennedy. It worked for Ronald Reagan. And it is working now. So though they are comparing apples and oranges, I think the tax cut was great for putting money in our pockets and for creating lower deficits than we otherwise would have.

As far as the war against terrorism goes, that's more of a philosophical debate. If you don't feel threatened by terrorists who have sworn to bury you, you probably don't think it's worth fighting. If you do, you think spending some money on it is well spent.

I go with the latter view. I appreciate and respect that not everybody does.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, Re. taxes, I take it that math it not your stong suite. Re Iraq, I think it is outragious to use the war against terrorism and Iraq in the same sentence. How anyone can equate what has transpired in Iraq so far with making us safer at home is mind boggling. Our military is stressed, our finances are stretched, our relations with historic allies are frayed. All that we have done so far is enrage some that would not have given us a second thought before.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Nimh, my comment about the quarrel being how the war is prosecuted is based on the fact that we're already there. Whether we should have gone is moot from a practical point of view though I do believe a plurality of Americans will still say it was the right thing to do.

You don't have to go on what you "believe", you can just look it up. I gave you the link and the two kind of questions pollsters ask about this. Basically either a majority or a plurality still say they "approve" of America having gone there; but at the same time a majority says it "wasn't worth" it. Fickle bunch, public opinion, emphasis is everything. My take on the contradiction: a lot of people still think going there was in itself a good idea, but still wouldnt have agreed with it if they had known what would come of it (thus far).

0 Replies

Mesquite, my math is just fine. Also my reading skills. Look it up. I'll even give you some links when I get some time. Why don't you start by reading the article I used to start this thread?

And I approve and support the war on terror. Millions of us do.

Nimh, sometimes it's really okay to just go on gut feeling and perceptions about the national mood. Sometimes that tells you as much as the polls or graphs or commentators do though I look at those now and then too. In all honesty I don't completely trust them since how a question is phrased or the demographics of the people polled or even the time of day a poll is done can cause the answers to be less than a broad based representative example. (I am not a statistics/polling expert but my daughter is.)

At any rate I find it tedious to have to look up somebody else's opinion every time I express one. Tell me if you think I'm wrong, and, if I care, I'll hunt something up to support my opinion.

0 Replies

So , by your logic , if a million americans supported "The bear patrol"* it would be right?

Quote:

*Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

From Tv tome Razz

0 Replies

Reading the Simpson's is just as funny as watching them. Bear Patrol, heh heh.

0 Replies

Regarding the progress in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35558-2004Jun11.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Nimh, sometimes it's really okay to just go on gut feeling and perceptions about the national mood.

One's individual personal gut feeling about what "the national mood" is, is imho about the single least reliable thing you could go on ... especially if you're as partisanly passionate as most of us are ...

Foxfyre wrote:

Sometimes that tells you as much as the polls or graphs or commentators do though I look at those now and then too. In all honesty I don't completely trust them since how a question is phrased or the demographics of the people polled or even the time of day a poll is done can cause the answers to be less than a broad based representative example.

Definitely. Thats why I never go on any single poll - they can go all kinds of ways. Thats why I started charting all of 'em and calculating the averages - because when a whole bunch of 'em, by different polling agencies with differently worded questions etc go a certain way, you can more confidently surmise that something's going on.

Foxfyre wrote:

At any rate I find it tedious to have to look up somebody else's opinion every time I express one. Tell me if you think I'm wrong, and, if I care, I'll hunt something up to support my opinion.

Ehm, yeah, thats what I just did.

You stated A; I said, well, actually, if you look at these data <hands you link with pretty complete overview of data>, its more like midway between A and B; you repeated that you "believe" A is the case.

<shrugs> If you don't agree with my interpretation, thats fine, that we can discuss. But if you're not even going to bother looking at the data to doublecheck your surmise, whats the point of discussing stuff at all?

This is my attitude: Tell me if you think I'm wrong, and if you make a convincing case or point out factual errors, I'll acknowledge it and change my assumptions. If I dont think you're convincing, I'll hunt something up to support my opinion, if I care enough. Spot the difference ;-)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the tax cut was great for putting money in our pockets and for creating lower deficits than we otherwise would have.

So it is your assertion that the Bush II tax cuts actually had the effect of lowering the deficit?

That is strange when it was Daddy's tax increase that had the effect of lowering the deficit.

Any empirical evidence to back that up?

0 Replies

Yes, I and, according to what I've read, most credible economists believe that Bush II's cutting tax RATES---there is a difference between cutting taxes and cutting tax rates--had the net effect of lowering the deficit. As did the same phenomenon in the Reagan administration and in the Kennedy administration. In all cases it generated increased government revenues without which any deficits would have been deeper.

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes, I and, according to what I've read, most credible economists believe that Bush II's cutting tax RATES---there is a difference between cutting taxes and cutting tax rates--had the net effect of lowering the deficit.

OK, foxy. This is an extraordinary claim. I don't think that there is anything to back this one up.

First of all, can you give a link to even one credible economist who makes this claim. Many economists are saying that tax cuts are generating a modest number of jobs. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that cutting taxes lowers the deficit.

Secondly, look at the numbers. We had 12 years of Reagan/Bush I. There was an extraordinary increase in the deficits when Reagan took office. There was no extraordinary increase in tax revenue (there was a modest increase in the late 80's but nothing to balance the deficits).

The positive deficits in the Clinton years, of course, speak for themselves.

Saying that lowering taxes reduces the deficit is sheer lunacy. There is neither reason, nor data to support it.

0 Replies

I think a Democrat could win on the economy, hands down, if he had the guts to be a democrat. This would mean trumpeting the Clinton success and putting forth a progressive platform.

I don't think Kerry has what it takes to do this.

0 Replies

ebrown writes:

Quote:

First of all, can you give a link to even one credible economist who makes this claim. Many economists are saying that tax cuts are generating a modest number of jobs. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that cutting taxes lowers the deficit.

X (revenues) minus Y (expenditures) = Z (deficit) assuming Y exceeds X. If X increases, the deficit will be less. The article I used to start this thread is a credible source that X has been more. I can find any number of sources that will agree that cutting tax rates in the Kennedy administration and in the Reagan administration significantly increased revenues. There is no reason to believe that increased revenues now are not due at least in part to the recent round of cuts in tax rates.

0 Replies

Increased revenues in what?

I will agree that the economy is getting better and there have been a few more jobs created than was lost. It still has a long way to go and the deficit is still a record breaker.

I think what has helped the jobs situation is, believe it or not, the war. With the reservist having to leave their jobs for so long the employers have to get those jobs replaced. With the back door draft those reservist have to stay away from their jobs that much longer so the jobs situation is temporally improved. What is going to happen if we ever let those reservist go home to find their jobs gone? What about the army people that can't get out now; what if later they get out, what kind of a job are they going to have?

I don't know because admittedly I don't do homework before saying stuff, but I bet that there are not too many jobs created here at home but most of those jobs have to do with security or the military in some way.

0 Replies

Increase in productivity, in GNP, in families incomes, and in government treasuries. A LOT of increase in government treasuries.

Some of the jobs can indeed be attributed to temporary replacements for National Guardsmen and Reservists deployed overseas, but only a small fraction of the jobs can be attributed to this.

We haven't yet regained the jobs that were lost to the recession--I and others believe the depth and severity of that recession was directly related to 9/11 but I'm not going to say that to keep from having to spend my afternoon mining sources. But at the rate jobs are being created, if it continues, 2004 will be a pretty impressive year.

Based on the fact that the median income is increasing instead of lowering suggests that at least many of the jobs created are good paying jobs too.

0 Replies

I would add to the reasons stated
Bush's religious agenda and IMO his attempt to blur the lines between church and state.

0 Replies

Well that debate is being conducted, but I fail to see how it relates to jobs and the economy.

0 Replies

It's the economy stupid!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know