But now that you dislike Bush and want him out of power, would it be crazy to assume that your future opinions will be biased against Dubya?
I think that the point is that my record shows that I don't get blinded by bias...my support for Bush didn't determine my opinion of his actions...my support for Clinton didn't stop me from arguing for his impeachment...etc. I don't dislike Dubya as a person, I dislike what he has done, so I think it can be assumed that his actions will be evaluated in and of themselves as much as I can. That said, I will admit that what he has already done is, IMO, so incredibly dangerous, destructive, dishonest, corrupt, and just plain stupidthat I can't concieve of any eventuality altering my desire to want him out of office, but that will be for what he has done, not for what he will do. That is enough, to me, and another term withhim at the helm scres the bejeezus out of me, but I won't need to misread future actions of his to think that; I already do...As I said, I think my record on issues like this shows that I evaluate them individually, not as a means to support some overall bias or political philosophy...
Maybe I have selective memory, but I don't recall you supporting Bush in any threads. I'm not a big Bush supporter, so I have no personal motivation for this 'selective memory'. Maybe you can provide some further info... was Bush being attacked in the affirmitive action thread and you supported his stance? Was Bush supporting pro-life legislation and you supported him? Many here despise all actions of Bush, and give him no credit. Based on the threads, I think it is quite reasonable that folks would get this impression about you also. Now if I missed something specific, I am most willing to reconsider.
It's too late, the bejeezuses I did have are already gone... No, but seriously, that's what i mean by that quote...and add to that the fact that the only really competent man in the top levels of the administration, Powell, will likely not be back, and it's seriously frightening.
Yes, well despite you voting record, you are still human. And if you don't like Bush then most of your posts on him will be negative. Glynch or BJ dont deny they have bias (as I also admit I am biased), but what is the big difference between you and them besides voting record?
Sorry guys...uh..this was a thread on the economy and people's jobs, right? On the news, one small firm made a $6M capital investment due to a tax break pushed by Bush. Anecdotal, but good to hear.
I have supported Bush for some minor things, but the only issue I have really commented on involving him in any real way is the whole war on Iraq/Terror thing, which is far and away the event in this administration with which I am most concerned, and rivals nukes as the greatest global concerns of my lifetime. I defended Bush, sort of, on the economic issue, and argued for positions which he supports, like abortion, without really addressing Bush himself, as it wasn't about him at the time. I am concerned with other actions Bush has made, say in environmentalism, but haven't really gotten involved in the discussion...the only one I really have discussed, as I say, is with regards to our current war/terror issues, wherein you can draw a direct connection between the president and our actions. I don't draw such a line on economics, now or when it was being used against Bush, and I don't really argue many of the other issues in terms of the President, as in, say, abortion, it's more of a judicial issue, and his position doesn't have an immediate effect on our actions, unlike Iraq. But, again, I did defend Bush on this very issue ( connection between President and economy), and my record for being non-partisan stands...as such, I feel that an apology for the 'party line' comment, and it's implied dismissal of all my positions, without just cause, would not be out of order. But, outside of the war/terror angle, where have you ever heard me criticising Bush, except perhaps light hearted jabs at his...er...intelligence, for lack of a better word.
I think you miss the point of the voting record...it's not just that they always disliked him and I have come to do so, it's that I have demonstrated that liking or not liking a person doesn't affect me ability to make an objective evaluation of their actions, even if that runs contrary to my like/dislike. I am not saying that batman, etc. don't do this, I suspect they do, but I am saying that my record proves that I do...Liked Bush...Bush makes war...don't like Bush's war actions...see, liking him didn't effect my evaluation. Liked Clinton...Clinton commits perjury...argue for his being booted...see, liking him didn't affect my evaluation. Why would this one dislike suddenly overwhelm my objectivity?
Krugman on the uptick... _____________ A Big Quarter By PAUL KRUGMAN he Commerce Department announces very good growth during the previous quarter. Many observers declare the economy's troubles over. And the administration's supporters claim that the economy's turnaround validates its policies. That's what happened 18 months ago, when a preliminary estimate put first-quarter 2002 growth at 5.8 percent. That was later revised down to 5.0. More important, growth in the next quarter slumped to 1.3 percent, and we now know that the economy wasn't really on the mend: after that brief spurt, the nation proceeded to lose another 600,000 jobs. The same story unfolded in the third quarter of 2002, when growth rose to 4 percent, and the economy actually gained 200,000 jobs. But growth slipped back down to 1.4 percent, and job losses resumed. My purpose is not to denigrate the impressive estimated 7.2 percent growth rate for the third quarter of 2003. It is, rather, to stress the obvious: we've had our hopes dashed in the past, and it remains to be seen whether this is just another one-hit wonder. The weakness of that spurt 18 months ago was obvious to those who bothered to look at it closely. Half the growth came simply because businesses, having drawn down their inventories in the previous quarter, had to ramp up production even though demand was growing slowly. This time around growth has a much better foundation: final demand — demand excluding changes in inventories — actually grew even faster than G.D.P. So it's unlikely that growth will drop off as sharply as it did back then. But — you knew there would be a but — there are still some reasons to wonder whether the economy has really turned the corner. First, while there was a significant pickup in business investment, the bulk of last quarter's growth came from a huge surge in consumer spending, with a further boost from housing. These components of spending stayed strong even when the economy was weak, so there shouldn't have been any pent-up demand. Yet housing grew at a 20 percent rate, while spending on consumer durables (that's stuff like cars and TV sets) — which last year grew three times as fast as the economy — rose at an incredible 27 percent rate last quarter. This can't go on — in the long run, consumer spending can't outpace the growth in consumer income. Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley has suggested, plausibly, that much of last quarter's consumer splurge was "borrowed" from the future: consumers took advantage of low-interest financing, cash from home refinancing and tax rebate checks to accelerate purchases they would otherwise have made later. If he's right, we'll see below-normal purchases and slower growth in the months ahead. The big question, of course, is jobs. Despite all that growth in the third quarter, the number of jobs actually fell. And new claims for unemployment insurance, a leading indicator for the job market, still show no sign of a hiring boom. (By the way, for the last month there's been a peculiar pattern: each week, headlines declare that new claims fell from the previous week; a week later, the past week's number is revised upward, and the apparent decline disappears.) And unless we start to see serious job growth — by which I mean increases in payroll employment of more than 200,000 a month — consumer spending will eventually slide, and bring growth down with it. Still, it's possible that we really have reached a turning point. If so, does it validate the Bush economic program? Well, no. Stimulating the economy in the short run is supposed to be easy, as long as you don't worry about how much debt you run up in the process. As William Gale of the Brookings Institution puts it, "Almost any tax cut or spending increase would succeed in boosting a sluggish economy if the Federal Reserve Board follows an accommodative monetary policy. . . . The key question is, therefore, not whether the proposals provide any short-term stimulus, but whether they are the most effective way to provide stimulus." Mr. Gale doesn't think the Bush tax cuts meet that criterion, and neither do I. To put it more bluntly: it would be quite a trick to run the biggest budget deficit in the history of the planet, and still end a presidential term with fewer jobs than when you started. And despite yesterday's good news, that's a trick President Bush still seems likely to pull off.
UC Berkeley Study Assesses Potential Impacts of 'Second Wave' of Outsourcing Jobs From U.S. BERKELEY, Calif., Oct. 29 (AScribe Newswire) -- A ferocious new wave of outsourcing of white-collar jobs is sweeping the United States, according to a new study published by University of California, Berkeley, researchers, who say the trend could leave as many as <b>14 million</b> service jobs in the United .States. vulnerable. Study authors Ashok Deo Bardhan and Cynthia Kroll, both researchers at the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics housed at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, advise say that not all of the at-risk jobs are likely to be lost. But, they note, jobs remaining in the United States could be subject to pressures to lower wages, and the jobs that leave may slow the nation's job growth or generate losses in related activities. Jobs most vulnerable to the new wave of outsourcing, the researchers say, range from include medical transcriptions services, <b>stock market research for financial firms </b><I>(My field)</I>, customer service call centers, legal online database research, payroll and other "back office" activities. Altogether, the positions feature vulnerability-producing attributes such as a lack of face- to-face customer service, work processes that enable telecommuting and Internet work, high wage differentials between countries, a high information content, low social networking requirements, and low set-up costs. http://www.ascribe.org//cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?ascribeid=20031029.121324&time=1325PST&year=2003&public=1 For a copy of the report, go to: http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/news/Research_Report_Fall_2003.pdf.
Pre-election predictions: - WMD found - Osama and Saddammie are finally captured - Dow soars to 11k - gasoline falls to 5 cents a gallon in US - Peace in the Middle East Bush wins in a landslide! (With one year before elections, I hope you're working your ass off, Mr. President.)
Understood Cohen...When I say Ideal, I mean given things are perfect. It will never be a perfect world, but the longterm goal of a good economy is to keep the fluctuations to a minimal (Making it as straight of a line as possible). My point is that Bush and other presidents in the past always try get full credit for 'creating' the good economy in election years, but in reality, they have <i>almost</i> nothing to do with it. The state of the economy in election year plays a <b>VITAL</b> on whether the president gets reelected. I blame it on the ignorant voters. Regan got reelcted because of the improving economy prior to his second term. Bush Sr got beat out by Clinton in his reelection bid because of the recession after the first persian gulf war. Clinton got reelected because of the good economy. Bush Jr. will get easily reelected if the economy looks up. He won't see a second term if it dips back down.
Looks like the boom was ending before the quarter did... __________ Consumer spending dips Driver of two-thirds of the total economy fell in September, ending 3Q boom, as incomes rose. October 31, 2003: 9:34 AM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Personal income rose, but spending fell in September, the government said Friday, as a robust third quarter ended with a whimper. The Commerce Department said personal income rose 0.3 percent after rising a revised 0.3 percent in August. Economists, on average, expected it to rise 0.2 percent, according to Briefing.com. Spending by consumers, which accounts for about 70 percent of the nation's economic activity, fell 0.3 percent after rising a revised 1.1 percent in August. Economists, on average, expected spending to fall 0.1 percent, according to Briefing.com. U.S. stock prices rose in early trading after the report; traders were more likely to focus on separate reports, due later Friday morning, on consumer confidence and Chicago-area manufacturing. Treasury bond prices rose. Consumer spending grew at a 6.6 percent annual rate in the third quarter, which ended in September, according to a separate Commerce Department report on Thursday. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate as a result. Child credit tax rebates and proceeds from a wave of mortgage refinancing helped fuel the burst of spending in the summer, effects that have faded in the early fall. Disposable, after-tax income dropped 1.0 percent in September, in fact, marking the end of rebate checks, according to the department. "The ... report makes it clear that, without the treats given to us by tax cuts and low interest rates, consumers are on their own," said Joel Naroff, president and chief economist of Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pa. "Let's just hope they don't trick us and slow spending sharply." Many economists believe that future consumer spending will depend, in large part, on improvements in the job market. Non-farm payrolls grew modestly in September, the first such growth since January, according to the Labor Department, and economists hope that growth will accelerate. An improving job market should boost wages, which have been supported during the longest labor-market slump since World War II by astonishingly high rates of growth in productivity, which is a measure of output per worker hour. Productivity cuts the cost of doing business, and the savings have been shared between corporate profits and those people who still have jobs. But wage growth slowed in September, gaining 0.1 percent, following August's 0.2 percent gain. Proprietors' income, which some economists believe reflects in part the income of a new group of self-employed workers, rose 0.7 percent, including various accounting adjustments, following August's 0.5 percent gain. Personal saving -- disposable income minus spending -- fell to $235.2 billion from $294.3 billion in August. Personal saving as a percentage of disposable income was 2.9 percent, compared with 3.5 percent in August.
