01-21-2004, 02:20 AM
stephanie "steals" dj's part in a commercial audition! intense stuff
01-21-2004, 02:20 AM
stephanie "steals" dj's part in a commercial audition! intense stuff
01-21-2004, 02:21 AM
I would rather have a surplus in budget to pay off our deficit than a tax break.
01-21-2004, 02:27 AM
Won't the surplus come back once our economy is just as strong as it was under Clinton?
Quote:Simple - the American people, those that voted for him and those who didn't, didn't support his enormous tax cut. So he set out to try and convince people that the economy was bad - which in Republican terms means in need of stimulation through tax cuts. If he could make everyone think things were starting to turn to shit, he believed he could justify his larger tax cut. Even better, since he knew the economy was truly in good shape, once he got his tax cut passed, he could stop pretending there was a bad economy looming, and instead claim there would have been a downturn, but his tax cut saved the day. What, exactly, would be the fucking point of all that? He uses his magic words, makes the economy turn down, for what? To pass a tax cut? And then he says it's all ok, and the economy comes back? Why do all that?
01-21-2004, 03:40 AM
I was in the cutting edge of the technology boom that led the economic run and downfall. It was like someone turned off a switch in March of 2000.
Technology spending is incredibly cyclical and as companies become weary of their revenues, they shut it off. It just stopped. This was before the election. Well before. The stock market tumbled, hires, other capital expenditures just dried up. You are fooling yourself or just plain ignorant to think otherwise. Look at revenues for companies in 99, 00, 01, and 02 to see just how quickly things got real bad. I don't know what industry you were in, or what your boss was saying, but I was on the street. I was selling equipment from the companies that were booming the most, and selling to companies that were booming the most. They all just stopped and it was inevitable that things were coming to a screetching halt. WELL before any presidential election. Just like how in '92 the economy was turning around before Clinton got in office (check those numbers too. Re: unemployment, GDP growth et al)
01-21-2004, 03:43 AM
Check the dates. Might not fit into your warped view of republican: bad, crooked, out for big business, but sorry. It took me all of 10 seconds to pull up the info.
(screen.width/2)){this.width = (this.width/2)}" onclick="javascript:if(this.width > (screen.width/2)){this.width = (this.width/2)} else {this.width = (this.width*2)}" border="0" alt='Posted image: Click to resize'>
01-21-2004, 03:55 AM
People getting excited about the 300 bucks they got back from bush's tax relief is like candians thinking their health care is really free. People ended up paying out the ass in other ways.
http://www.dvdspot.com/member=Gonzostyle http://www.myspace.com/brooklyngonzo http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770777388 diceisgod Wrote:I LOVE YOU GONZY WONZY SNOOKIE WOOKIE DUMPLIN BUNS!
01-21-2004, 03:56 AM
and talk about self fullfilling prophesies (and triple posting!)...how about Lieberman says the economy has a headcold, but if we pass the tax cut it'll be pnemonia, knowing that economy is bad (as ummmm all key economic indicators showed before the election!!) and a tax cut can't fix it (nor was in intended to fix anything -- the purpose of the tax cut was because there was a surplus meaning too taxpayers were overbilled and therefore should be refunded -- what a novel idea!) so when the economy continues to decline, he can blame the tax cut.
No!!!! A politician would NEVER do that!
01-21-2004, 03:58 AM
Words of hope that still ring true today, JFK's inaugural speech - 1961
Quote:We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end as well as a beginning--signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago. http://www.dvdspot.com/member=Gonzostyle http://www.myspace.com/brooklyngonzo http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770777388 diceisgod Wrote:I LOVE YOU GONZY WONZY SNOOKIE WOOKIE DUMPLIN BUNS!
01-21-2004, 03:59 AM
Quote:the economy has a headcold hedcold! http://www.dvdspot.com/member=Gonzostyle http://www.myspace.com/brooklyngonzo http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770777388 diceisgod Wrote:I LOVE YOU GONZY WONZY SNOOKIE WOOKIE DUMPLIN BUNS!
01-21-2004, 04:13 AM
i didn't do it
01-21-2004, 05:07 AM
Twice I had a nice, long reply written out only to get booted. It's too late for me to say everything I wanted to, but I'll just make one quick point for now: If we're going to use quarterly GDP growth as evidence of economic strength, then we may as well learn whatever we can from the policies of that evil commie Jimmy Carter.
1977 Q2: 8.1% GDP growth 1978 Q2: 16.7% GDP growth Or, maybe we can do better than to google "gdp growth" and post the first result that supports the argument we're trying to make (result #8).
01-21-2004, 05:18 AM
oh snap, son!
01-21-2004, 05:22 AM
Also, on the actual SOTU speech, a few things:
We need to eliminate steroids from pro sports? Who's idea was that, and why is that more important than say, Osama bin Laden (who Bush never mentioned)? Reading the letter from 10 year old Ashley was bizarre. Giving billions of tax dollars to religious charities is not something I want my government to be doing. When he said that no one can now doubt the word of America, I think his nose grew about 3 feet. The existence of WMD's in Iraq, and evidence of any Al-Qaeda links are still very much in doubt.
01-21-2004, 11:57 AM
Sir O Wrote:Twice I had a nice, long reply written out only to get booted. It's too late for me to say everything I wanted to, but I'll just make one quick point for now: If we're going to use quarterly GDP growth as evidence of economic strength, then we may as well learn whatever we can from the policies of that evil commie Jimmy Carter.That's fantastic. You are aware that the the presidential election was in 1980, right? Who cares what was going on in '78? Yes, it was one of the first few results on Google. That was my point. Doesn't make the information less correct. Are you debating the numbers that I put up? Are you still saying that the economy was in fact strong until Bush took office when it was clear that GDP had slowed dramatically well before the election.
01-21-2004, 12:20 PM
My nightly nightly Family Guy episode was a great one: New Year's Eve '99. The apocolypse. I got bored with the state of the union.
01-21-2004, 04:02 PM
Sir O makes a compelling arguement. Jays just comes off like a Bush lackey.
01-21-2004, 04:09 PM
It's easy to be compelling if you ignore basic facts.
The economy was turning down before Bush took office. I can cite (like he did) personal experience which showed that to be the case. I can also show (like he did not) actual economic facts supporting my thesis. GDP was slowing dramatically, and I would venture to guess that unemployment was also worsening prior to November (and that's even a LAGGING indicator of economic strength)
01-21-2004, 05:08 PM
I don't doubt that the economy is largely independent of what the president does in some respects but to say that the president has no effect on the economy is ridiculous. We do not live in a socialist society. This is not a planned economy. This is a free market.
The president can do things to try to be a catalyst for the market. It will always be argued who was really responsible for what the ecomony does because it depends on so many factors and their effects may not be seen immediately. Politicians will argue back and forth who really is responsible for the economy. By and large the president isn't even smart enough to understand what he can do to stimulate the economy outside of what his economic advisors tell him. He is soley interested in what will LOOK good and get him re-elected. The president is a politician, he wants your approval, if tax cuts will please you in the short term and the president is in the first term of his presidency, it may be in his best interest to band aid a problem so he can please you into a second term. What is important is a plan. What is Bush's long term plan to deal with real economic problems like the bankruptcy of social security which we keep paying for but will never get the chance to cash in on and the massive deficit that our kids will wind up paying for. I don't hear the president coming up with any real answers for these problems, or should I say, his economic advisors arent coming up with them and/or he isnt communicating them to us. |
|