"New Direction(TM)..."

old news... previously posted... do try to keep up....

It's such silly propaganda that it's not worth spending time addressing.

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there means, what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year. A new direction from there means, what?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction from there means, what?

Cyclo,
I have a serious question for you.

When the Clinton admin touted their low unemployment numbers,using the same standard that the Bush admin is using,why did the dems call it the "best economy in 50 years"?
Now,the unemployment figures are LOWER then Clintons,and yet you and the dems call it the worst economy.

Since the way the numbers are calculated has not changed,what has in terms of employment?

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
I have a serious question for you.

When the Clinton admin touted their low unemployment numbers,using the same standard that the Bush admin is using,why did the dems call it the "best economy in 50 years"?
Now,the unemployment figures are LOWER then Clintons,and yet you and the dems call it the worst economy.

Since the way the numbers are calculated has not changed,what has in terms of employment?

The Dems were playing politics the same way the Republicans do now. Nothing surprising about that. We are talking about politicians, after all.

Our economy isn't the worst ever, but it is highly disfunctional.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
I have a serious question for you.

When the Clinton admin touted their low unemployment numbers,using the same standard that the Bush admin is using,why did the dems call it the "best economy in 50 years"?
Now,the unemployment figures are LOWER then Clintons,and yet you and the dems call it the worst economy.

Since the way the numbers are calculated has not changed,what has in terms of employment?

The Dems were playing politics the same way the Republicans do now. Nothing surprising about that. We are talking about politicians, after all.

Our economy isn't the worst ever, but it is highly disfunctional.

Cycloptichorn

Compared to what?

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
I have a serious question for you.

When the Clinton admin touted their low unemployment numbers,using the same standard that the Bush admin is using,why did the dems call it the "best economy in 50 years"?
Now,the unemployment figures are LOWER then Clintons,and yet you and the dems call it the worst economy.

Since the way the numbers are calculated has not changed,what has in terms of employment?

The Dems were playing politics the same way the Republicans do now. Nothing surprising about that. We are talking about politicians, after all.

Our economy isn't the worst ever, but it is highly disfunctional.

Cycloptichorn

Compared to what?

Compared to other periods of American history and other world economies.

You can counter with whatever metric you like, but any country which adds over 3 trillion dollars to their national debt in 6 years is suffering from a dysfunctional economy.

Cycloptichorn

Just to show how stupid this is, I'll pick three errors out -

Quote:

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there means, what?

Federal revenues are nearly always at all-time highs. There's nothing special about taking in more money from an ever-growing population. I also wonder how inflation plays into this...

Quote:

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year. A new direction from there means, what?

No, the deficit isn't down that far. Two reasons -

First, the writer of this hack piece conveniently fails to mention that the deficit didn't exist before Bush took office. So it isn't really 'down' but merely 'not as bad as it has been.' It isn't a positive thing.

Second, the 50% number is only achieved by stealing around 100 billion dollars from the Social Security trust fund, and not counting Iraq in the budget projections. That's around 225 Billion dollars that isn't counted. It's easy to balance budgets when you jack money from other accounts and don't list your biggest expenditures.

Quote:

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction from there means, what?

Sanity, perhaps? Market prices are currently unsustainable and a whole ton of people who bought in at the 200% inflated prices are going to lose their shirts.

It isn't as if the homes themselves gained some sort of greater intrinsic value over the last few years - they didn't. Only the market speculation drove the prices up that high, combined with the advent of new types of mortgages and the Bankruptcy bill passed a few years back, which allows banks to lend to people they know can't pay with very little risk.

Everything looks great when you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that... everythings great.

Cycloptichorn

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America 's 401K's are back. A new direction from there means, what?

You say that there was no deficit when Bush took office. Don't you mean there was no year to year deficit? Even reading your #'s on the next page we still had a deficit.

Its easy to have a non-deficit year to year when you start slashing funding to the military. All those bases they closed down and the way funding was cut in general would go a long way to not having a year to year deficit. Ask people in the military what it was like to serve while Clinton was President and you will get not so much of a postitive answer.