Yes, I think the difference may be greater than 12%. The coverage today doesn't compare to that of 30 years ago, in my opinion. My father was able to have Dr. Denton Cooley, one of the premiere heart surgeons in the world, do his bypass surgery and remove his gall bladder. His coverage was Blue Cross/Blue Shield. As for Bush, do you seriously think the only major difference is that he lowered income taxes? Perhaps I'm not getting the joke! D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush.
I do not believe that the market equals the economy, which is why I refuted danny's post that claimed that a down day in the market = a weak economy. Try to keep up, or recuse yourself from the debate.
If you will read my post, it is not limited to this single instance. You have done it several times in the past. As you say, try to keep up, or recuse yourself.
i doubt very seriously that cooley went anywhere near your father's gall bladder. and if it had been 40 years ago, my old man might have scrubbed in.
Oh, he removed his gall bladder. Cooley had a thing about doing surgeries on patients he had done bypasses on, who were at risk during the procedure. If your father was around then (1970's), ask him. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush.
Exactly. I used to worry about this crap. But I've come to accept that the average middle class Republican making $50k a year, struggling to get by, gets what they deserve. Since I've benefitted from the inequality at their expense, I salute their ignorance. Screw the middle class. A better and earlier retirement for me. Viva Tax Cuts for the Wealthy!
If we're going to pin a decline in income from 30 years ago on Bush, should we at least give him credit for improving our fashion sense? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=137401 And I guess by that measure, we should also be giving him credit for increasing the income of women who's real income surely went up (and thus was conveniently ignored in the article). [there may have been some other factors involved perhaps -- but why muddy the article]. I am curious how they concluded on the 12% drop. And if that was unique to the US. I just don't buy it. I found the article silly. Gee -- how come the lowest 20% of income earners didn't have their taxes reduced by $18,000 too??? I agree with the pemise -- Bush has been a poor leader -- but, man...what a shoddy article to support it.
Yeah, when the Canadian dollar is worth more than the US one, gold is at $850 and oil nearing $100 and the administration has to subsidize gasoline to keep the country going, I know the economy is just roaring...
Metaphor Flag! Build your house on quicksand (if that's possible), and your foundation will sink. Build your house on sand, and your foundation will crack. And now back to the normal broadcast D&D poo flinging.
Honestly, how many presidents have there been in the past 30 years? And you want to blame Bush for everything? Im not saying Bush has been a great president, but to say his fiscal policy (which hasnt exactly been radical) is the cause of all this I think is wrong. I think our troubles have more to do with our monetary policy. Greenspan devalued our currency and led us from one bubble to another.
I don't blame Bush for everything, just one hell of a lot. The former GOP led Congress are partners in crime. Did Greenspan write the budgets? Did Greenspan not exercise one single veto (except for the stupid stem cell one, which had nothing to do with monetary policy) of the wildly outrageous pork fest of the GOP Congress? To simply blame things on Greenspan does a disservice to Greenspan. Considering what he had to deal with, he did, in my opinion, a pretty decent job. And you don't consider coming into office claiming to be a fiscal conservative, with a GOP Congress claiming to be fiscally conservative, said by both while running for office, with a budget surplus coming in, and then running record budget deficits, record trade deficits, and growing the size of government 40% isn't radical? And heck, I left a lot out. Come on, I know you're wiser than that. Was Greenspan "perfect?" Of course not, but to blame him is, with all due respect, like blaming Hannibal's invasion of the Roman Republic on the elephants. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.
Interesting take there. How many presidents have pushed through a war and major tax cuts at the same time?
The devaluation of the dollar absolutely can be blamed on Bush. It was part of a plan to bolster American manufacturing (which seems to not have really worked). It is no coincidence that the dollar was exceptionally strong all through 8 years of Clinton/Greenspan, and has steadily gone in the toilet for the 7 Bush/Greenspan/Bernanke. I can give you references to this if you want.
Bush Proud U.S. Economic Woes Can Still Depress World Markets WASHINGTON, DC—While speaking to a group of White House reporters, President Bush fended off questions about the weak state of the dollar, the expected long-term deficit caused by Social Security and Medicare payments, and a faltering housing market by assuring reporters that the U.S. economy's ability to have such a widespread negative impact on the world only further proves it is "easily the best." "Our recent credit crisis alone has been enough to depress share prices in Japan, Rome, China, and Brazil," a smirking Bush said during a press conference Thursday. "Sounds to me like our economy is still pretty powerful." Bush later added that he was equally proud of the impact U.S. foreign policy has had over the past six years, adding that only a truly great president could be capable of fostering so much hatred across the globe. http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bush_proud_u_s_economic
