Bush/Clinton Budgets (split from gay marriage)

[Darth Wong]

Party A cites well-known source.
Party B cites himself.

Sorry, but unless Party B is a complete jackass, he did not successfully rebut party A.

Hate to break it too you, but I can say "CNN said..." too. With out the actually article it's not any more proof either.

You're full of shit. Citing the name of a source (ie- CNN) is perfectly adequate unless someone challenges you for more specific details about the article in question, which you can provide upon request, as I eventually did. You can say "CNN said" if you want, but you'd be lying unless you actually looked it up, and people know me better than to think I just make things up.

Anyway, you did not even do that much; you cited no one but yourself. You gave no name, no evidence, no information, no numbers, nothing but your own vague qualitative say-so. You don't seem to have any idea how to construct something resembling a meaningful argument.

[Col. Crackpot]

The only explanation that Bush has given for not taxing the wealthy harder is that it will stunt the economy, but Clinton's eight years of economic growth proved this theory to be a bunch of bullshit.

Clinton had as much to do with that economic growth as he did with the sunrise. Clinton's spending DESIRES were curtialed by a Republican stranglehold on the legislature. That forced a moderation of the administration's economic policy. Remember 1994? Remember Congress shutting down the government until Clinton agreed to a balanced budget? Those werent; his fucking ideas. The balanced budget was part of the 'Contract with America'.... a GOP creation.

[The Kernel]

The only explanation that Bush has given for not taxing the wealthy harder is that it will stunt the economy, but Clinton's eight years of economic growth proved this theory to be a bunch of bullshit.

Clinton had as much to do with that economic growth as he did with the sunrise. Clinton's spending DESIRES were curtialed by a Republican stranglehold on the legislature. That forced a moderation of the administration's economic policy. Remember 1994? Remember Congress shutting down the government until Clinton agreed to a balanced budget? Those werent; his fucking ideas. The balanced budget was part of the 'Contract with America'.... a GOP creation.

What the fuck does this have to do with what I said? The Republicans claimed when Clinton took office that a higher tax cut on the wealthy would cause an economic depression. It didn't.

Fast forward to GWB taking office. He claims that a tax cut on the wealthy will jump start the economy. It didn't.

I'm not claiming that Clinton's tax policy was solely responsible for the economic boom of the 90's, but it obviously didn't hurt.

[Joe]

What the fuck does this have to do with what I said? The Republicans claimed when Clinton took office that a higher tax cut on the wealthy would cause an economic depression. It didn't.

A depression? You're saying they were predicting a full-blown economic depression? I'd like to see this claim backed up.

Fast forward to GWB taking office. He claims that a tax cut on the wealthy will jump start the economy. It didn't.

Too little too late, also 9/11 hit when the tax cuts had only been in effect for a few months, which really hit the economy hard.

[The Kernel]

A depression? You're saying they were predicting a full-blown economic depression? I'd like to see this claim backed up.

Actually they predicted an economic recession (sorry, it's been a long time) after Clinton proposed raising the tax rate on the top 1% in 1993. Here was the Republican response:

I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally responsible

The Clinton plan is a one-way ticket to recession. This plan does no reduce the deficit...but it raises taxes and it puts people out of work.

Too little too late, also 9/11 hit when the tax cuts had only been in effect for a few months, which really hit the economy hard.

Okay, but what about now? You can't honestly claim that 9/11 is what is still holding the economy back. And now we have record deficits due to Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy.

[Joe]

Okay, but what about now? You can't honestly claim that 9/11 is what is still holding the economy back. And now we have record deficits due to Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy.

It isn't, the economy is on the upswing, despite a slowly-recovering jobs market (which, relatively speaking, was never that bad for a recession anyway, with unemployment barely reaching over 6 percent).

And I'm sorry, but the tax cuts are not responsible for the deficit and people who believe this is the case have lost touch with reality at this point. Without the tax cuts, the budget would have just grown even more uncontrollably, more than likely. The only way to deal with the deficits is either to severely cut the growth of spending or for a quicker route, to take a chainsaw to the federal budget, but neither of these options are high priority items on the federal agenda.

[The Kernel]

It isn't, the economy is on the upswing, despite a slowly-recovering jobs market (which, relatively speaking, was never that bad for a recession anyway, with unemployment barely reaching over 6 percent).

But not nearly as much of an upswing as Bush and his economic cronies predicted, even post-9/11. Further, the drop in unemployment that we've seen thusfar has mainly been due to people dropping out of the job market rather than new jobs.

And I'm sorry, but the tax cuts are not responsible for the deficit and people who believe this is the case have lost touch with reality at this point. Without the tax cuts, the budget would have just grown even more uncontrollably, more than likely. The only way to deal with the deficits is either to severely cut the growth of spending or for a quicker route, to take a chainsaw to the federal budget, but neither of these options are high priority items on the federal agenda.

Did I say that the tax cuts were responsible for the deficit? NO. I said they are responsible for the record deficit. We were probably going to have a deficit anyways, but Bush's insistance on keeping the tax cuts (not to mention the cost of the Iraq war and subsequent occupation) made the situation far worse.

[Joe]

It's only a record deficit in nominal terms - in real terms, as a percentage of GDP it is still quite high but it is not a record.

[The Kernel]

It's only a record deficit in nominal terms - in real terms, as a percentage of GDP it is still quite high but it is not a record.

Irrelevent, it is still being exacerbated by Bush's ridiculous tax cuts. Moreover, you haven't shown any evidence of your claim that the tax cuts have had any positive impact whatsoever (the economy making a slow recovery after four years is not proof).

[Joe]

Irrelevent, it is still being exacerbated by Bush's ridiculous tax cuts.

Oh, bullshit, if the tax cuts hadn't been passed the government would have just spent the money on something else. You don't honestly think this administration would have used the money responsibly, do you? Furthermore, the most recent tax cut only adds up to about 35-45 billion a year, which is but a tiny fraction of the deficits we're running now.

Moreover, you haven't shown any evidence of your claim that the tax cuts have had any positive impact whatsoever (the economy making a slow recovery after four years is not proof).

Really. I was unaware I had at any point made that claim.

[The Kernel]

Oh, bullshit, if the tax cuts hadn't been passed the government would have just spent the money on something else. You don't honestly think this administration would have used the money responsibly, do you? Furthermore, the most recent tax cut only adds up to about 35-45 billion a year, which is but a tiny fraction of the deficits we're running now.

If you add up all the tax cuts that Bush proposed, it comes to around $600 billion over ten years. Not exactly an insignificant sum (that could have easily paid for the Iraq reconstruction).

As for the governments irresponsible spending...yeah, you're probably right. But then at least we'd have an excuse to replace them.

Really. I was unaware I had at any point made that claim.

You said:

[quote="Joe]Too little too late, also 9/11 hit when the tax cuts had only been in effect for a few months, which really hit the economy hard.[/quote]

That "too little, too late" implies that it was actually beneficial, even if it was in a small way.

[Joe]

If you add up all the tax cuts that Bush proposed, it comes to around $600 billion over ten years. Not exactly an insignificant sum (that could have easily paid for the Iraq reconstruction).

$600 billion dollars over ten years is nothing. The GDP over the next ten years is projected to be 140 trillion, meaning the total cost of the tax cuts using your numbers would add up to less than one half of a percent of that amount. It is immaterial.

That "too little, too late" implies that it was actually beneficial, even if it was in a small way.

No, that implies that the tax cuts came at a point when they were too small to have any material effect of the economy.

[Col. Crackpot]

But not nearly as much of an upswing as Bush and his economic cronies predicted, even post-9/11. Further, the drop in unemployment that we've seen thusfar has mainly been due to people dropping out of the job market rather than new jobs.

fuckwit, the unemployment rate now is better than it has been at the peak of some boom times. Do you even know what a real recession feels like? 79-83 was a recession. the unemployment rate was almost 11% By contrast, this "recession" the unmeployment rate peaked at 6.3% in june of 2003. It is currently at 5.6% WELL below the 30 year average.

Now the next thing you are going to say is "wah-wah! but the people gave up trying so they aren't counted! wah-wah boo-frikkety-hoo!" Well asswipe don't you think that happens in EVERY RECESSION! So the unemployment rate in December 1982 was 10.8% after an extended period of decline, don't you think some people gave up then too? It's only logical that they did... according to your logic. You are making the arguement that after an extended perios ofunemployment, some people give up making the real unemployment rate higher. You know what, you are right. But even with that factored in we are still way fucking below the 30 year average.

unemployment date for the past 30 years broken down by month

[The Kernel]

fuckwit, the unemployment rate now is better than it has been at the peak of some boom times. Do you even know what a real recession feels like? 79-83 was a recession. the unemployment rate was almost 11% By contrast, this "recession" the unmeployment rate peaked at 6.3% in june of 2003. It is currently at 5.6% WELL below the 30 year average.

11% eh? Too bad the area I live in has even higher levels of unemployement, so yes I know exactly what it feels like.

In any case, when did I ever claim that the unemployement figures defined the recession? It is perfectly possible to have a recession/depression and not lose a single job; a recession is a period of negative economic growth. Our latest recession was actually far worse than the 79-83 recession as far as lost revenues are concerned, not to mention stock prices and devaluing of the US dollar.

It was BUSH who was holding out his hopes that an improvement in the unemployement rate would be his salvation in the November election which turned out to be wishful thinking.

Now the next thing you are going to say is "wah-wah! but the people gave up trying so they aren't counted! wah-wah boo-frikkety-hoo!" Well asswipe don't you think that happens in EVERY RECESSION! So the unemployment rate in December 1982 was 10.8% after an extended period of decline, don't you think some people gave up then too? It's only logical that they did... according to your logic. You are making the arguement that after an extended perios ofunemployment, some people give up making the real unemployment rate higher. You know what, you are right. But even with that factored in we are still way fucking below the 30 year average.

Great, now tell me when the fuck unemployement numbers became the sole defining characteristic of a recession?

[Col. Crackpot]

11% eh? Too bad the area I live in has even higher levels of unemployement, so yes I know exactly what it feels like.

that was just the nationsl average. some places ( W.VA , IND etc.) had unemployment rates in the 20% range

In any case, when did I ever claim that the unemployement figures defined the recession? It is perfectly possible to have a recession/depression and not lose a single job; a recession is a period of negative economic growth. Our latest recession was actually far worse than the 79-83 recession as far as lost revenues are concerned, not to mention stock prices and devaluing of the US dollar.

It is most certainly NOT when you factor in inflation (the real value of the dollar) which you must do when doing calculations of this nature. Inflation was rampant durin the 80's.

by the accounts of most economists the current recession began in the first quarter of 2000. That is when the tech bubble burst. that is when GDP began to fall. Employment fell shortly after.

It was BUSH who was holding out his hopes that an improvement in the unemployement rate would be his salvation in the November election which turned out to be wishful thinking.

It has fallen. from 6.3% to 5.6%

Great, now tell me when the fuck unemployement numbers became the sole defining characteristic of a recession?

i didn't. i was responding to your post regarding un-employment. Technically speaking the recession is over. The GDP is increasing. Unemployment is falling. The stock market rose by more than 25% lest year.

[The Kernel]

It is most certainly NOT when you factor in inflation (the real value of the dollar) which you must do when doing calculations of this nature. Inflation was rampant durin the 80's.

A decent point, but it isn't as simple as that. If you simply factor in inflation, then the GDP numbers seem much worse then they really are, the problem was that as the US currency was devalued, foreign currencies were not which means that we were paying much more for imports and getting much less for exports. This was, in effect, a rigged situation that couldn't possibly last (and it didn't) so you have to attribute some of the economic growth that came afterwards to the market being artificially depressed, then reacting.

It has fallen. from 6.3% to 5.6%

But the problem is, the number of new jobs created hasn't been nearly as high as Bush promised (which also supports my point about some people simply dropping out of the job market).

i didn't. i was responding to your post regarding un-employment. Technically speaking the recession is over. The GDP is increasing. Unemployment is falling. The stock market rose by more than 25% lest year.

GDP is increasing, but consumer spending is still relatively low and we have been devaluing our own currency in order to try to boost our own economy which will eventually catch up with us. The stock market is up, but it is still fluctuating wildly (most of the gains this year have been flat) since consumer confidence is shaky at best with all the corporate corruption and underfunded SEC.

[Col. Crackpot]

[

A decent point, but it isn't as simple as that. If you simply factor in inflation, then the GDP numbers seem much worse then they really are, the problem was that as the US currency was devalued, foreign currencies were not which means that we were paying much more for imports and getting much less for exports. This was, in effect, a rigged situation that couldn't possibly last (and it didn't) so you have to attribute some of the economic growth that came afterwards to the market being artificially depressed, then reacting.

the primary force behind the weak dollar right now is low interest rates. many invetors looking for stable interest bearing accounts are looking to overseas banks. That is good and bad. Good becuase US goods are cheaper in foreign markets, making them affordabe and spurring manufacturing. That is something we deperately need in light of the cuurent trade deficit. It also presents the US as a more affordable tourist destination and the low intrest rates have a phenominal effect on the housing market. Home ownership is at an all time high. Furthermore it is causing a rise in the value of homes, padding the 'bottom line' so to speak of the average joe. The negative effects being that Americans have reduced purchasing power overseas and also imports are more expensive (which arguably can be a good thing.)

But the problem is, the number of new jobs created hasn't been nearly as high as Bush promised (which also supports my point about some people simply dropping out of the job market).

no, but it is growing. Relatively speaking unemployment wasn't very high to begin with.

GDP is increasing, but consumer spending is still relatively low and we have been devaluing our own currency in order to try to boost our own economy which will eventually catch up with us. The stock market is up, but it is still fluctuating wildly (most of the gains this year have been flat) since consumer confidence is shaky at best with all the corporate corruption and underfunded SEC.

the benfits of the weaker dollar policy far outweigh the negatives, Also, historicly speaking the stock market posts only moderate gains the year after a tremendous upswing. Consumer confidnce, while important is just one piece of the pie. it has been rising steadily, granted slowly, up until the most recent drop. As for corporate corruption the big offenders have been publicly humiliated and many (Kowalzki- Tyco, Skinner-Enron etc) are on trial for their lives facing decades in prison and millions of dollars in fines.

[Col. Crackpot]

oh, Kernel btw:

[Guardsman Bass]

oh, Kernel btw:

A little early, don't you think?

[The Kernel]

the primary force behind the weak dollar right now is low interest rates. many invetors looking for stable interest bearing accounts are looking to overseas banks. That is good and bad. Good becuase US goods are cheaper in foreign markets, making them affordabe and spurring manufacturing. That is something we deperately need in light of the cuurent trade deficit. It also presents the US as a more affordable tourist destination and the low intrest rates have a phenominal effect on the housing market. Home ownership is at an all time high. Furthermore it is causing a rise in the value of homes, padding the 'bottom line' so to speak of the average joe. The negative effects being that Americans have reduced purchasing power overseas and also imports are more expensive (which arguably can be a good thing.)

In theory it can be a good thing, especially for a country like us that imports much more then we export. But the problem is that it is a short term solution, and it usually doesn't pay off well because though you may increase demand for exports, you drive away Foreign Direct Investment and even US companies will start to outsource even more if the low interest persist.

no, but it is growing. Relatively speaking unemployment wasn't very high to begin with.

No it wasn't terrible, but like I said, unemployement isn't the only factor in a weak economy.

the benfits of the weaker dollar policy far outweigh the negatives,

In the short term, maybe. However, we haven't seen exports spiking now have we?

Also, historicly speaking the stock market posts only moderate gains the year after a tremendous upswing.

There were good gains last year, but the market is still a crapshoot for the most part, especially in the technology sector. We've seen plunging stock prices for companies that actually beat street expectations (look at the latest Cisco debacle) which pretty much proves that its going to take a long time to repair investor confidence.

Furthermore, the most dangerous threat to the stock market has still not been addressed--corporate fraud. After the high profile Enron and Worldcom situations, you would have expected the Federal government to dramatically increase the funding of the SEC which didn't happen and now the average investor is still scared to death of losing everything in the market, even on big name corporations.

Consumer confidnce, while important is just one piece of the pie. it has been rising steadily, granted slowly, up until the most recent drop. As for corporate corruption the big offenders have been publicly humiliated and many (Kowalzki- Tyco, Skinner-Enron etc) are on trial for their lives facing decades in prison and millions of dollars in fines.

Consumer confidence is best seen in the latest holiday sales numbers which frankely were not very impressive. Sure, interests rates are low, but consumers don't seem to be spending more.

As for the corporate executives, most of them are still walking the street, while the SEC is powerless to stop more widespread coruption.

*snip stupid picture*

Go right ahead and pat yourself on the back if it makes you feel better. But I'm afraid your going to have to try harder then that.

[BoredShirtless]

oh, Kernel btw:

[snip]

So you grew up close to a Rally track, eh?

[Col. Crackpot]

In theory it can be a good thing, especially for a country like us that imports much more then we export. But the problem is that it is a short term solution, and it usually doesn't pay off well because though you may increase demand for exports, you drive away Foreign Direct Investment and even US companies will start to outsource even more if the low interest persist.

that statement makes no sense! Earnings drive the market. How can you say. with a straight face, that companies that increase earnings by increasing revenue through exports will be unattractive to foreign invetors?

No it wasn't terrible, but like I said, unemployement isn't the only factor in a weak economy.

neither did i. i did however point out how the other major factors (GDP, market indicies etc..) are showing strength.

In the short term, maybe. However, we haven't seen exports spiking now have we?

not yet, but manufacturing changes take time. There is a growing price advantage of US goods vs. European goods. Volkswagens are getting more expensive in the US and Fords are getting cheaper in Europe.
American Tourists are spending less in London because the Pound is overly strong. Meanwhile Britons can afford to buy a lot more on holiday in New York.

There were good gains last year, but the market is still a crapshoot for the most part, especially in the technology sector. We've seen plunging stock prices for companies that actually beat street expectations (look at the latest Cisco debacle) which pretty much proves that its going to take a long time to repair investor confidence.

no, it's not a crapshoot for those who diversify. Nice Cisco red herring, but i'll address it anyway. The last appendgae of the overvalued tech sector. The tech sector that was let to run wild by the sec under clinton's watch.

Furthermore, the most dangerous threat to the stock market has still not been addressed--corporate fraud. After the high profile Enron and Worldcom situations, you would have expected the Federal government to dramatically increase the funding of the SEC which didn't happen and now the average investor is still scared to death of losing everything in the market, even on big name corporations.

Other people are still scared to death of a bearded man who supposedly lives in the sky. Many fears are unfounded. Yes corperate malfeasence was a big issue, but it is being dealt with. The average investor is making money again. The markets have increased 25% last year and is now somewhat stable and marginally up for the year.

Consumer confidence is best seen in the latest holiday sales numbers which frankely were not very impressive. Sure, interests rates are low, but consumers don't seem to be spending more.

How does GDP grow if people arent spending more? How does manufacturing activity grow if spending doesn't increase?

As for the corporate executives, most of them are still walking the street, while the SEC is powerless to stop more widespread coruption.

The big ones like the boys from Enron and Tyco are on trial for their lives.

Go right ahead and pat yourself on the back if it makes you feel better. But I'm afraid your going to have to try harder then that.

ok. *pat-pat-pat* wow, i'm still right.

[The Kernel]

that statement makes no sense! Earnings drive the market. How can you say. with a straight face, that companies that increase earnings by increasing revenue through exports will be unattractive to foreign invetors?

Because the falling value of the dollar makes the investment unattractive on the global market. It won't do much good for a Japanese investment firm to invest in the US and be expecting a 10% return when they lose 5% on simple currency devaluation. This is basic economics kiddo.

not yet, but manufacturing changes take time. There is a growing price advantage of US goods vs. European goods. Volkswagens are getting more expensive in the US and Fords are getting cheaper in Europe.
American Tourists are spending less in London because the Pound is overly strong. Meanwhile Britons can afford to buy a lot more on holiday in New York.

Until we actually see exported goods increasing, you can't simply assume that foreign markets will eat up our stuff.

Also, have you seen the Consumer Price Index lately? Consumer goods are increasing in price.

no, it's not a crapshoot for those who diversify. Nice Cisco red herring, but i'll address it anyway. The last appendgae of the overvalued tech sector. The tech sector that was let to run wild by the sec under clinton's watch.

You really are stupid. Overvalued tech sector? Yeah, three years ago maybe. Today, it is the most undervalued sector in the market, mostly due to investor shock over dot-com companies (which really had nothing to do with high-tech companies, and anyone who even glanced at their PE ratios would have known they were terrible investments).

Oh, I see you also slipped in a little jab a Clinton. Nice job there Sparky.

Other people are still scared to death of a bearded man who supposedly lives in the sky. Many fears are unfounded. Yes corperate malfeasence was a big issue, but it is being dealt with. The average investor is making money again. The markets have increased 25% last year and is now somewhat stable and marginally up for the year.

Please tell me, how is corporate fraud being dealt with? The SEC has recieved almost no additional funding and they are the last line of defense against coporate fraud.

How does GDP grow if people arent spending more? How does manufacturing activity grow if spending doesn't increase?

Slashing prices on high end merchandise (such as the latest car deals). This moves volume, but it isn't sustainable. Also certain sectors are improving, which helps bring up the national average, while others are still languishing. A recovery yes, but not a widespread recovery.

And in case you haven't noticed, GDP has not significantly increased yet.

The big ones like the boys from Enron and Tyco are on trial for their lives.

Really? Ken Lay is on trial? Wait, no he isn't, he's walking the streets.

Besides, it doesn't fucking matter. Enron are the guys who got caught, we have a lot more to worry about with the guys that DIDN'T get caught yet and the SEC is so totally underfunded that they are unable to keep tabs on even a fraction of the companies out there. They can get lucky, but usually a company will have to meltdown all on its own before they notice cooked books.

[Joe]

Please tell me, how is corporate fraud being dealt with? The SEC has recieved almost no additional funding and they are the last line of defense against coporate fraud.

Sarbanes-Oxley, chief. Kind of important.

[The Kernel]

Please tell me, how is corporate fraud being dealt with? The SEC has recieved almost no additional funding and they are the last line of defense against coporate fraud.

Sarbanes-Oxley, chief. Kind of important.

On the legal side, yes it is a very good step. The problem is on the enforcement side.