The problem is, as much as I am lothe to admit it, that Reagan's cuts didexert that much control over the economy. Of course we spent Bush #1's term and Clinton's first term paying back the virtual loan that Reagan took out. I am concerned in this case, because we are building up a Reganesque debt, which I assume will have the same concequences, but we have a 50 year low federal funds rate, in addition to the tax cuts, and the economy is still just gaining mommentum. To me this suggests that sometime around 2010 we are going to see a recession which could rival the worst recessions of all time. I'm not blaming GW but I might begin to do so unless there is some sort of relatively imediate action taken to remedy the situation.
It's easy to see why you didn't make it as a comedian. A Dem saved us from the first Bush --- A Dem will save us from the second.
I posted this in another thread but I got money back this year after having paid money the past 4 years. I didn't make any less money; I was simply put into a lower bracket as a result of the tax cuts. I'm not rich. I have a home that cost me less than$100K. I drive a truck and my wife drives a Saturn. Our combined income last year was around $115K. We are firmly in the middle class. The tax cuts were NOT just for the richest people in the country.
A strong economy is basically about confidence. If people think things are going in the right direction, they're more confident about spending money. If there's a monkey in the White House threatening to spend the next 20 years at war with everyone, confidence tends to diminish.
Can you please point me to the spot in my post where I said that either of them gave me a raise or took it away? I said those things happened on their watches. While it might be a simpleton way to look at things you are fooling yourself if you don't think other Americans look at it in the same light. Lots of people vote based on their pocketbook. When people who were working under Clinton making money and living the American dream and now under Bush are no longer working and struggling to make ends meet they are going to want change. Had Bill Clinton presided over a jobless recovery you can't bet your life savings he would have never won the second term. Just as if John Kerry gets elected and people aren't working when term 2 comes around he will get replaced. Just wanted to thank you ima_drummer2k for addressing my post, your response tells me all I need to know about you. Did you even read it? Or did you just look at it and decide it wasn't in support of GWB then tried to inject some goofy humor to discredit it?
A Dem's weak-minded, rudderless foreign policy and gutting of the intel community via funding cuts and various restrictions (the wall from the Gorelick memo) left us vulnerable to 9/11. A Dem's obession with bull**** peacekeeping ops and a love for cutting the military budget overextended our military badly. A Dem's corruption in a deal that exchanged Chicom money for technology secrets allowed the Chicoms to leapfrog decades of R & D. A Dem couldn't be a man and admit he got a little BJ from an intern. Instead, he committed perjury to cover it up. So if you want gross corruption, vulnerability and a foreign policy that leaves us cowering in the face of evil, vote Democrat. If you want higher taxes, more onerous regulation of our businesses and the destruction of our nation's economy via the Kyoto accords, vote Democrat. While Bush may not be perfect, anybody and I do mean any warm-blooded creature that has a semi-functional brain would be a better president than that pompous, self-serving, gigolo liar. With that big pre-nup to Teresa, she doesn't trust her money to his sorry ass. Why should we?
Here is a balanced (hey, it's balanced as far as I can tell!) column about the Arctic refuge and its oil... Some Facts Clear In the War of Spin Over Arctic Refuge By Michael Grunwald Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 6, 2002; Page A03 Last spring, the Interior Department tried to put together a slide show of facts about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It was no easy task. Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton had made no secret of her desire to open up the refuge to high-tech oil drilling, but the department's biologists were not shy about emphasizing their environmental concerns. Ann Klee, Norton's top adviser, wrinkled her nose at one of their early presentations. "Don't you guys have any ugly pictures of ANWR?" Klee asked. She was kidding. But as the Senate began debating the future of that remote patch of tundra under a comprehensive energy bill it took up yesterday, there was a larger point to her joke. The raging debate over drilling in Alaska has been a triumph of spin over science, with ideologues on both sides taking a selective approach to the facts. A 1.5 million-acre swath of wilderness that few Americans have ever visited has been transformed into a political abstraction, a blank canvas for advocates to cover with portraits that suit their arguments. In general, drilling proponents exaggerate how much oil the United States can expect to recover from the refuge and how much it would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign producers, while critics understate the potential benefits of oil production. Anti-drilling forces have warned of ecological catastrophe based on scant scientific evidence, while pro-drilling forces have twisted facts to suggest that oil exploration would have no environmental impact at all. Similarly, some environmentalists describe the refuge as if it were Alaska's last pristine place, when in fact the state has enough protected public land to blanket all of Texas. And some proponents argue that opening the Arctic should be no big deal because drilling is allowed in some wildlife refuges, when in fact this would be the first refuge opened to drilling since the 1960s. "People use the facts in pretty strange ways," said Kenneth Bird, a geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey who has studied the oil potential of the refuge. "It seems like there's always something missing in the analysis." This debate over drilling has flared on and off for decades, but over the past year it has turned into a kind of economy-versus-environment proxy war, fought with almost religious fervor. On one side are green groups that see the issue as a symbol of a heartless anti-environmental assault by the Bush administration and its supporters in the extraction industries. On the other side are conservative groups who see a mindless anti-capitalist campaign to defend caribou at the expense of people. Environmentalists have made "America's Serengeti" their top fundraising and lobbying issue; the petroleum industry, meanwhile, has given $40 million to Washington politicians since the 2000 campaign cycle. The two sides cannot even agree on the terms of the debate: drilling opponents refer to "the Arctic refuge" or "the coastal plain," while proponents tend to call it "ANWR" or "the 1002 area," a legal term. But while both sides have played games with the facts, some of the basic questions about the issue have relatively clear answers. How much oil is out there? No one knows for sure. But the environmental movement's favorite statistic is a USGS estimate that the coastal plain contains 3.2 billion barrels of "economically recoverable" oil at the current price of $20 per barrel – about what the nation uses in six months. Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska), drilling's top advocate in Congress, has shot back in speeches and a letter to The Post that the USGS actually estimates 10.3 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. The truth, according to Bird, who conducted the study, is that Murkowski is wrong and the environmentalists are right. But Bird makes another point: "That's a lot of oil!" More than $60 billion worth, just sitting underground. The six-month figure assumes the United States would stop accepting oil from all other sources, which, Bird says, is "totally ludicrous." The refuge probably won't produce as much oil as nearby Prudhoe Bay, America's largest field, but Bird does believe it could be the largest new field in decades. And as technology improves, it may become more economical to recover more oil there. Would it reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil? Yes, a little. According to the Energy Department, the United States now imports 57 percent of its oil, and without new domestic energy sources, it may import 67 percent by 2020. The refuge oil could cut those numbers by a few percentage points. The American Petroleum Institute's best-case scenario found that opening the refuge – which would presumably lead to exploration of nearby Native-owned land as well – could supply about 5 percent of the nation's oil consumption. Environmentalists point out that many drilling advocates who rail about America's dependence on foreign oil are fighting efforts to reduce that dependence by increasing fuel-efficiency standards for American cars. The bottom line is that the United States and its SUVs account for one-fourth of the world's oil consumption, much more than it produces, so anything that increases domestic supply by adding production or decreases demand by improving energy efficiency will reduce – but not eliminate – U.S. reliance on others. Will drilling destroy the refuge's wildlife? There is no doubt that animals like to hang out on ANWR's coastal plain. A few polar bears have set up dens there. The 129,000-member Porcupine Caribou Herd often rambles through for insect relief and calving. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists call the coastal plain the refuge's "center for wildlife activity," citing musk oxen, wolves and 125 bird species. And studies have shown that much of that wildlife tends to avoid oil fields. The bulk of the science, however, has not shown that North Slope oil fields have been deadly or even very harmful to wildlife. Polar bears are doing fine. The Central Arctic Caribou Herd has actually expanded from 5,000 to 27,000. Norton recently got caught giving Congress misleading and even inaccurate statements about caribou science, but she was right in saying that predictions of ecological disaster simply have not come true. Will drilling sully the refuge's wilderness values? The simple answer is yes. The coastal plain will have a massive industrial complex on it. The more complicated questions are: How massive? And to what effect? Oil technology has progressed dramatically beyond the hulking, sprawling infrastructure of Prudhoe Bay; the newer Alpine field nearby sucks oil from an area as big as the District of Columbia on a pad the size of the Capitol grounds. The ANWR bill that passed the House would limit the "footprint" of oil infrastructure that touches the tundra to 2,000 acres. And while those acres could be spread throughout the coastal plain, Alaska would still retain more than half of the United States' designated wilderness – an area the size of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia and Maryland combined. Norton has also vowed to limit drilling to winter and to require ice roads and other methods to minimize the environmental impacts. Still, there will be impacts. Oil infrastructure damages tundra and vegetation even when it doesn't spill; and at Prudhoe Bay, there has been an average of a spill a day, mostly small, but totaling 1.5 million gallons of toxic materials since 1995. In the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge near Anchorage, the Fish and Wildlife Service is studying whether 350 toxic spills from oil fields have contributed to an abnormal number of deformed frogs. Ultimately, most Americans don't know the details of this intricate debate; they've just seen a few pretty pictures of the refuge. And even those pictures, as Klee suggested last spring, can be misleading. They often show ANWR's majestic Brooks Range, which will be preserved as wilderness regardless of the Senate's decision. They often show the refuge in springtime, when the landscape is lush but drilling would be forbidden. So last Wednesday, Norton mailed the nation's network and cable news anchors a videotape – supplied by Arctic Power, a pro-drilling lobbying group in Alaska – showing the coastal plain in wintertime, with no polar bears or caribou running around. It looks white. It looks blustery. It looks flat. It looks kind of ugly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44300-2002Mar5?language=printer I can understand the positions of both sides on the issue. There definitely appears to be oil there. It's also, without question, an extremely fragile place to drill... and that is a dirty, messy business, which those in favor should be willing to admit, no matter how much care is taken. And there are no guarantees a catastrophe won't occur. In fact, it's 100% certain that there will be oil spills. The only question being how much, how often and at what scale. But the notion that ANWR would have "saved" us from our present dilemma of high oil prices/high gas prices is just silly. Having said that, it may be worth doing, but I can see no reason to rush into it. The day will come when we'll be looking to oil for plastics and the like... not for gasoline, and if we still have ANWR to develop the oil, it will start looking like pure gold.
Thanks. I'm a Democrat and a liberal one... now what were you saying about my party?? Could you attempt to be just a little less imflammatory? I know it's difficult for you, but you're just asking for posters to go ballistic. Then you'll complain about the "left-wing fringe dominance" of D&D.
Your overwhelming jealousy of the Dem’s successful management of the country during the roaring 90's certainly brings a smile to my face. It’s not often that an opponent of fiscal responsibility leaves their true beliefs so wide open for dissection. I guess you would have four more years of out of control big government spending, mismanagement of foreign policy, and outright criminal behavior instead of the roaring prosperity we experienced with the Democratic 90’s. You are an excellent example of why conservatives and their devil offspring the “neoconservatives” have no place in modern government.
Well gosh kazo, you are certainly welcome. I'm glad my 2 sentence sarcastic post tells you "all you need to know about me". You should really try to incorporate more fiber into your diet...
I thought I saw where this was going, but at the end there you took a sudden left turn that caught me off guard...
Regarding the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, it has become a symbol for both sides and as such seems more important to both sides than it really is. As such, I imagine it will remained deadlocked for quite a while, which I don't think is such a bad thing. I say this with the understanding that oil is a limited resource, but more importantly cheap oil[/ulr], that is oil which is cheap to extract, will become rare fairly soon, perhaps as soon as 20-40 years. One of the smaller produers, (Dubai? Oman?) is currently having to pump so much water in fields that used to burst that they are recovering something like 10% oil from the well. The worst thing that happened for oil was when it dropped down to $7 a barrel in the 80's. That signaled the beginning of the return to the gas guzzler, which in turn has helped cause the particular supply shortage we find around us today. When oil was $7 a barrel, nobody cared about fuel cells. They quite a bit more today, even though the big picture hasn't changed quite as much. The current squeeze on the oil supply, therefore, creates demand for alternatives, which grows private sector R&D and innovation. It also provides us with a hedge against bad times that will come, whether in our lifetimes or that of our grandchildren -- supply pressure will increase pressure to drill. In this way it acts as a second tier strategic oil reserve.
It's not jealousy, but disgust. The last good Democratic president was Kennedy. LBJ saddled our nation with the Vietnam War and the stupid Great Society, which pissed billions down an entitlement rathole and created a cycle of dependence. Carter was likely the next worst president ever. Thanks to his bufoonery, the U.S. traded one of their best allies (Iran) for an intractable enemy (post-shah Iran). We gave away the Panama Canal, slashed defense spending for most of his disasterous tenure. His bungling gave us the misery index and the concept of national malaise. Clinton was just along for the ride in the 1990's as the techno boom picked up steam. His policies had zero to do with it and his tax increases later stymied the economy. I've been on record here decrying Bush's fiscal priorities, so that takes one angle from your sorry little attempt to brand me as a hypocrite. Clinton did nothing in his foreign policy except blather some rather well-strung together words and scatter our military on useless peacekeeping ops that meant nothing to our national security. When the threat of terrorism loomed large, he lobbed a few cruise missiles at tents and aspirin factories and refused to treat it as a military issue. His response to the Cole bombing, Khobar Towers, WTC attack and others was non-existent. In fact, the sonuvabitch tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for Oklahoma City! He could have had OBL on a silver platter, but decided against it. He was likely the most corrupt leader this country ever put in the Oval Office. He allowed our secrets to walk away to the Chicoms in exchange for campaign monies. He pardoned unrepentant Puerto Rican Machertos terrorists to help his wife secure the Hispanic vote in NYC. He was disbarred because his sorry ass couldn't tell the truth about a simple blowjob. Everywhere you looked, his adminstration reeked of corruption. What, you think Kerry is a "fiscal conservative?" Have you read his proposals? If you think Bush's budgets spend more money than a drunken sailor in Tijuana, perhaps you read Kerry's proposals. He is an unabashed liberal who believes in an appeasing foreign policy, increased transfer of wealth from producers to non-producers and increased regulation on our nation's businesses. Did I also mention he's a flip-flopping gigolo who couldn't take a firm stand on any issue of any sort? And that's the guy you want running the country? Someone who married for money? Someone who wants to be on all sides of an issue? Someone who criticizes everything the President has done without offering so much as one realistic solution? Are you sure that liar is the best you Democrats can do? If so, you and the rest of your Democratic brethern should be ashamed of yourselves. Ashamed.
deckard...from what i have seen america consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day. america is also one of the biggest producers of oil. we produce about 6 million barrels of oil a day. an extra 1.4 million barrels over 20 years or so would amount to a pretty big increase over what we produce now...thats nearly 25% more. i used that 10 billion number because that is what my friend used when he was talking about that. he just graduated as a petroleum engineer. he is also a hardcore liberal who is for drilling in ANWR after doing the research on its pros and cons. either way we are both in agreement it should be done and i think thats all that really matters. i just wish it would have been started last year.
underoverup...when did most of these huge corporate scandals, like enron, orginate? i don't care about the politics of the economy one way or the other, but if you are going to claim credit for the development of the out of control market in the 90's then you need to claim credit for how many people it hurt. lots of people who thought the market was something it was not lost a lot of money in it. do you want to take credit for that to?
