US Economy grows at fastest rate since 1984!!

[MKSheppard]

Defense expenditures were not the only component of the 1980s debt buildup, Ice, you know that.

Shhh, be quiet, you don't want to shatter his little fantasy world where
Ronnie Raygun almost brought us to the brink of Nuclear War and
spent trillions for no reason.

[Iceberg]

Yeah. Worked to add two trillion dollars of federal debt.

Defense expenditures were not the only component of the 1980s debt buildup, Ice, you know that.

They were the most visible chunk of it, though.

[Col. Crackpot]

Yeah. Worked to add two trillion dollars of federal debt.

Defense expenditures were not the only component of the 1980s debt buildup, Ice, you know that.

They were the most visible chunk of it, though.

*cough* Tip O'Neil *cough*

[Col. Crackpot]

Oh, and Iceberg, while were talking about tax policy i'll throw in a blatant logic fallacy...an appeal to athority from your side of the aisle......... or is it just an axample of sound tax policy that worked wonders in the past, and that will and is working again today.

This net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion(1963 dollars) will increase the purchasing power of American families and business enterprises in every tax bracket, with greatest increase going to our low-income consumers. It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which our free system depends--induce more investment, production, and capacity use--help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year--and reinforce the American principle of additional reward for additional effort.

Kennedy seemed to support cutting the tax on the wealthy and felt it would help tho poor through economic development. and wait! it did. The Kennedy 1963 tax plan was brilliant. Did imention Kennedy's support of supply side economics? The 60's were quite prosperous. too bad Johnson and Nixon had to go and fuck shit up.

[Durandal]

You'll get no arguments from me on that. The difference in our positions is, you'd cut a little spending and raise taxes a little, and I'd cut a lot of spending and cut taxes a little too.

The other difference is that his position is basically more implementable. I agree that taking a giant red pen to the federal government's spending would do a lot of good, but it won't happen. We can all thank lobbyists for that. The biggest practical tool for affecting the economy has unfortunately become tax manipulation, because spending cuts draw the ire of key lobbies that can just black mail congressmen with votes in their districts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Reaganomics Forever!

Although the nation’s payrolls grew by 57,000 in September - the first increase in eight months - the economy needs to add a lot more jobs than that each month to drive down the 6.1 percent unemployment rate, analysts have said.
The administration has argued that as economic growth improves, meaningful job creation will follow. Bush will be counting on that as he heads into the 2004 presidential election season.
In other encouraging economic news from the Labor Department, new claims for unemployment benefits last week dropped by 5,000 to 386,000, a sign that layoffs are slowing. U.S. workers’ wages and benefits went up by 1 percent in the third quarter, up slightly from a 0.9 percent increase in the previous quarter.

[LadyTevar]

The US economy grew at a rate of 7.2% in the third quarter, the largest single quarter increase since 1984. Thats a big step. Shall i be so bold as to say that economic issues won't be so hot a topic come next november, as many on the left had hoped?

Show me the JOBS.

Better yet, show SIRNITRAM the jobs, so he can find a fulltime position.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Show me the JOBS.

Better yet, show SIRNITRAM the jobs, so he can find a fulltime position.

Shown.

[Col. Crackpot]

The US economy grew at a rate of 7.2% in the third quarter, the largest single quarter increase since 1984. Thats a big step. Shall i be so bold as to say that economic issues won't be so hot a topic come next november, as many on the left had hoped?

Show me the JOBS.

Better yet, show SIRNITRAM the jobs, so he can find a fulltime position.

http://www.jobs.com

had you read the whole thread you'd have learned that changes in employment is the last indicator to move in an economic cycle. give it time. within a year or so unemployment should be back below 5%. What filed is Nitram looking for work in anyway, if i may ask?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

within a year or so unemployment should be back below 5%. What filed is Nitram looking for work in anyway, if i may ask?

Moreover we've had the first increase in eight months--and the recovery is well underway. That isn't going to change. We're just going to have more increases in employment until the job situation is completely reversed. Look at the Reagan boom years to see what I'm talking about.

[Iceberg]

Reaganomics Forever!

How do you intend to pay down the ruinous debt being incurred by Bushomics?

[Pablo Sanchez]

I don't think anyone should start celebrating over a single quarter advance. There's a possibility (some one would say a probability) that the slight improvement is due to the customary increase in profits which companies receive when they tighten the payroll belts and trim the work force. Naturally, this wouldn't make for sustained growth. You shouldn't be so gleeful quite this early, issues of national economics take a bit longer to play out than just three months

The Kennedy tax cuts, btw, dropped the top marginal rate from 91 to 70%. I don't think this really bears comparison with Reagan or Bush-style tax cuts.

[Darth Wong]

We in Canada have seen paper "jobless recoveries" before. While jobs are a lagging indicator, that doesn't necessarily mean that a production increase MUST end up being followed by a job increase.

[SirNitram]

Here's a question for everyone. Where's the growth? Show me what parts of the economy leapt and bounded up for this record growth. Because, I remember not more than a day or so ago, a thread with links showing a downturn in every industry except Defense. Is that now shown to be incorrect, or have we simply seen an asshole who screws the men in uniforms and the vets relentlessly, then plunges so much into buying shiny new technology that the entire economy registers a rise in result?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How do you intend to pay down the ruinous debt being incurred by Bushomics?

I don't. Return a sufficiently Republican legislature in '04 that excessive spending will not occur and you might contain some of it; but even Republicans still spend, just less than Democrats--and worse, there's a war on. But any economic policies by the democrats would just make things worse; they spend more and they usually suppress growth (Vermont under Dean ran an average of 0.7% behind the national average GDP).

Quite frankly, we should just be pleased that our debt is so much better than that of other countries waging foreign wars in history. Spain under Philip II was declared bankrupt three times. Call me back when that happens and I'll say we're finished.

[Darth Wong]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the sort of "growth" which is actually being borrowed from the future? Is this genuine growth, or is this the sort of growth which is financed with GWB's huge public spending increases and is actually analogous to bragging about all the new stuff you bought with your credit card?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here's a question for everyone. Where's the growth? Show me what parts of the economy leapt and bounded up for this record growth. Because, I remember not more than a day or so ago, a thread with links showing a downturn in every industry except Defense. Is that now shown to be incorrect, or have we simply seen an asshole who screws the men in uniforms and the vets relentlessly, then plunges so much into buying shiny new technology that the entire economy registers a rise in result?

There's no way defence alone could account for this, short of during a mass-mobilization conflict like WWII. I'll try to get a breakdown for you.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the sort of "growth" which is actually being borrowed from the future? Is this genuine growth, or is this the sort of growth which is financed with GWB's huge public spending increases and is actually analogous to bragging about all the new stuff you bought with your credit card?

If that isn't adjusted for the inflation of the dollar I would contend it is at least partially misleading.

[Darth Wong]

There's no way defence alone could account for this, short of during a mass-mobilization conflict like WWII. I'll try to get a breakdown for you.

According to the articles I've seen, increased defense spending only accounts for about 20% of GWB's massive public-spending increases anyway.

[phongn]

Here's a question for everyone. Where's the growth? Show me what parts of the economy leapt and bounded up for this record growth. Because, I remember not more than a day or so ago, a thread with links showing a downturn in every industry except Defense. Is that now shown to be incorrect, or have we simply seen an asshole who screws the men in uniforms and the vets relentlessly, then plunges so much into buying shiny new technology that the entire economy registers a rise in result?

The Commerce Department has an Excel spreadsheet and a PDF of the detailed information for your perusal: Link.

[Darth Wong]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the sort of "growth" which is actually being borrowed from the future? Is this genuine growth, or is this the sort of growth which is financed with GWB's huge public spending increases and is actually analogous to bragging about all the new stuff you bought with your credit card?

If that isn't adjusted for the inflation of the dollar I would contend it is at least partially misleading.

Why? Are you suggesting that inflation has skyrocketed since 2000?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why? Are you suggesting that inflation has skyrocketed since 2000?

Absolutely not; though the more drastic increases of the past two years can be more attributed to combined military/internal security requirements (the later, after all, adding to the 20% of the budget that is defence, but being a wartime cost).

[TrailerParkJawa]

The growth they are saying is happening does not mean shit until the jobs come back and the jobs that come back have to be high paying jobs with good benefits. Not Wal-mart jobs, not 10 dollar an hour jobs, Im talking over $23/hour with benefits.

Seeing how many jobs are going overseas, or to cheap labor states back East, California has a long way to go. Im seeing a pick up in hiring here but most of the jobs pay 15-18 dollars an hour. Not enough, to get consumer spending going. It is barely enough to tread water.

While Im sounding like a pessimist, I do realize that only a few places are worse than where I am at. I think Denver, Portland, and Seattle are about the same or worse. I do think things cant get much worse, but they are not getting better for a while.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Defense expenditures were not the only component of the 1980s debt buildup, Ice, you know that.

Shhh, be quiet, you don't want to shatter his little fantasy world where
Ronnie Raygun almost brought us to the brink of Nuclear War and
spent trillions for no reason.

\

Care to back up your inflammatory bullshit against Ice, Shep?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Care to back up your inflammatory bullshit against Ice, Shep?

You want him to back up that Mark believes that, or that Ronald Reagan did indeed not do those things?