Let's see here...first comment was " You just find it impossible to ever break-free from the party line, eh?" Is pointed out that the only party I could realistically be accused of leaning towards would be Republican, and that I used the exact same rationale to defend Bush earlier, rather than apoligize for making completely unwarrented and unrealistic accusations which entirely miss the point of my criticism of Bush, you proceed to tell me that you, too, can criticze him. I have never said you can't, and in fact yesterday gave you credit, along with Max, for being flexible on political issues. When I said entrenched, I meant in your position towards my positions; ie seeing it all as partisan, which os false, rather than addressing it as genuine. And you can argue with my opinion on the immediate effects of fiscal policy all you want, I hardly feel that my grasp of economics is omniscient, nor do I feel that anyone can make that claim, but that would be beside the point...and your parting shot of partisanship again completely misses the point; allow me to refresh againl; MacBeth's Presidential Support Record: Last Election: Bush (R) Previous: Clinton (D) Previous: Bush (R) Previous: Bush (R) Previous: Reagan (R) Previous: Reagan (R) See the trend? Once and for all, while I am wholly behind any Presidential candidate who can get Bush out of power, and that means Democrat right now, although I would support Powell if he ran against Dubya, this is directly and completely as a result of his actions thus far as President, which terrify and amaze me, not because I bleed Democrat, or was a pre-disposed Bush-hater, as I voted for the man. I am really, really tired of people making this assumption. My perception of his actions and the war formulated my opinion of him, not the other way around, unlike many, it would seem.
That's just not true. First, it wasn't a "huge surplus" throuought the 1990's, the only years in which revenues outweighed expenses was from 98-00, and even then that was only a small fraction of public debt. Additionally, in those years, the growth in spending was but a small fraction of the increase in revenues, I'm not sure what the rate of inflation was but I don't think it outpaced it by that much, if at all. Second, as I've stated many times on this forum (although nobody ever seems to believe me or remember it, they just whine about "tax and spend" democrats"), government spending as a % of GDP declined consistently throughout the 1990's, and did not start to increase again until 2001, when GWB took office. look it up if you don't believe me www.cbo.gov
true, government spending never was reduced overall in the 90's, but I think an argument could be made that it was curtailed and the yearly increase in the budget was reduced throughout the 90's. 1980 Reagan Elected Federal Outlays $590.9B 1984 Reagan Re-Elected Federal Outlays $851.9B 1988 Bush Sr Elected Outlays now climb to $1,064.5B So between 1980 and 1988 (aka Reagan Years), Federal Outlays rose about $473 Billion 1992 Clinton Elected Outlays $1,381.7B 1996 Clinton Re-Elected Outlays $1,560.5B 2000 Bush Jr Elected Outlays $1,788.8B Clinton Years - Outlays rose $407 Billion Now look at 2002, outlays have reached $2,011B, a 222 Billion increase in just 2 years... all while Bush has put into effect massive tax cuts
This is TRULY hilarious. First, Bush claims he wants to get above all the negative politics, then McCain stomps him in New Hampshire and Bush immediately begins attacking (North Carolina). Then there was all that Gore goring. Ran on his own merits.
What it comes down to is a very simple question that all Americans will ask themselves in 2004... "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
How can such strong output growth coexist with such lousy employment news? Either firms will find themselves unable to meet rapidly-growing demand with their current labor force, and will start hiring at a furious pace, rapidly expanding employment; or, people will take a look at their less-than-certain employment prospects, cut back on spending, and the pace of demand growth will slow drastically. Current forecasts are smack in the middle: predictions of output growth at an annual rate of between 3.5% and 4.0% per year over the next year and a half or so, coupled with employment growth of perhaps 125,000 a month on average--enough to keep the unemployment rate from rising, but not enough to make unemployment fall. However, the longer the disjunction between fast output growth and stagnant employment continues, the less likely this smack-in-the-middle forecast becomes. Things are very likely to be either significantly better or significantly worse than the current consensus forecast.
My previous post was premature... (Dang no edit) I meant to add some stuff and credit Economist Brad DeLong with the words in the above post. Sorry. A lot of folks credit the numbers to tax cuts and home refinances, both of which can't happen every quarter. Is this sustainable? Is this the start of the recovery we've all wanted? (insert DeLong's comments here) I also want to do a little more reading on these numbers, especially since the Administration has been cute with the numbers for unemployment claims by playing up "preliminary findings" and "estimated numbers" with big PR splashes and then doing nothing when the real numbers come in that aren't quite as favorable. I'm not saying that's the case here, but as Reagan said when talking about this Administration (or was it the Soviets?) "Trust, but verify."
I'm far from an economic expert, but Bush deserves credit for the economy getting better?? I absolutely hate it when presidents try to get credit for a good/rebounding economy. The current mood of the economy have virtually nothing to do with the presidency. They can only affect it in the long term.
And if every unemployed person in the country answers NO, Dubya will be shovelling sh*t in Crawford faster than you can say NU-CU-LUR.
CZ, Read SOME credit, not even A LOT, but some. Presidents can have a notable impact on confidence levels and forecasts which will drive both consumer and business spending. I imagine that cash-back tax cuts such as what we rec'd this year have more immediate effects than most fiscal policy, and although they are not substantial relative to the economy as a whole, could be enough to provide a decent boost to an already recovering economy. Again, effecting the timing/debpth (as I mentioned before) of the cycle.
That fools no one. Rather simple concept...when one seeks to humiliate another, it's a personal attack. Most here have done what you do at least once, but your attacks on those who simply differ in opinion from you are, as I said, relentless. Maybe with a little introspection you can resolve your issues.
My argument stands Cohen, you are simply wrong here. My post was a criticism of his argument, as all can plainly see. I'm sorry I don't live up to your personal code of message board etiquette.
On one hand we have folks who will argue that this President's actions can only effect the short term, and others who argue that Presidents' policies can only impact the long term. Some of the tax cuts are 'repeating', and home refinances reduce interest payments and free up disposable income. Repeat effects both.
It may have something to do with the timing of the spike and the depth of it. But from what I understand, the more the fluctuations in the economy, the worst it is. In an ideal economy, you would want less of peaks and valleys and more of a straight line (stablity). So these temporary highs are not really good for the state of the economy in long term. Correct? (I can't believe I'm remember this crap from college)
macbeth, What issues are you 'Republican' on? And what issues (other than you 'defense' of Bush on the economy) in D & D have you argued the Republican party line?
Oh, God, many...I am anti-abortion, against affirmitive action, for example, and have argued both in here many times. I also do not automatically disavow a place for faith systems in everyday life, although I don't ascribe to one myself...I am one of the few who would seriously consider a necessary connection between military service and citizenship, or something like it...I could go on...I have wrongly been mislabelled 'liberal', 'Democrat', "Bush-hater" etc. in here time and again, simply because it's easier to do so than to address the issue, similarly, when arguing that Clinton should have been booted from office, I was called " conservative', 'a partisan Republican', etc. It gets both funny and irritating...
I doubt folks will get too concerned about a little peak in the growth rate near the end of a recession. If it remains elevated, some, esp. Greenspan, may get a little concerned. But to some extent, yes, you don't want the economy's performance all over the board, and you further don't want all of the fluctuations to be unexpected. You also don't want it overheating and you certainly don't want a depression. That said, the cyclicle nature and it's benefits to the overall economy are undeniable and unavoidable...it should never be a totally straight line, you need some peaks and valleys.
