I don't give a damn for Democrats -
Deficit spending is BAD. THAT is and was my point throughout this. It is BAD for the economy - especially, but not exclusively in the long run. BAD for the country. BAD for EVERYBODY.
As for the WWII spike - I guess the economy was so good that people couldn't afford meat, butter, rubber or chocolate. If the economy was so good, we should have been able to import these goods - but we couldn't. All our capital and effort was tied up in the manufacture of war material. I know that manufacturers got huge orders - where are those orders now? How many plants are coming out of mothballs? None? WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS? Go ahead, convince me!
Additionally, we're just plain better at putting crap together than we used to be. Automation has made HUGE strides in the past 40 years. Factories I knew needed 1000 employees to run full shifts now need 300...and most of them need full engineering degrees to maintain the control room equipment.
Yeah, we're so good at it there's a trade deficit. We're so good at it that we look to the east to produce inexpensive goods. The laborers there must ALL have engineering degrees.
On a percentage basis, we're going to lose these jobs anyway as money shifts away from durable mfr'ed goods purchases to service purchases...which is one of the largest factors in the decline in jobs since the late 80s.
Yeah - we don't actually produce much anymore - we just service ourselves. Ya think that might be evidence of a sick or decaying economy? No? Tell me how such a setup DOESN'T just concentrate wealth inexorably to the top few.
Any positive attributes of either candidate were completely eliminated by their downside
No. Bush is an IDIOT with delusions of godlike infallibility, and no sense of honesty or responsibility toward the Constitution he supposedly 'protects'. Shit, man, Nixon was a better President - even WITH the wage-price freeze! He was more honest, even considering Watergate! (Do you honestly think anyone would EVER hear about the tapes in Bush's administration?) I would vote for Koko the Gorilla over that nutball - and be confident I was making the right choice for a candidate far more qualified than the one we got!
huge growth in that came in the 90s when the economy was great
Let's see - what did the President do to improve the economy for that 'boom'. Did he ACTUALLY trim government fat and reduce spending. Did he preside of the greatest reduction of government jobs in history? Was the budget balanced? Was it huge amounts of deficit spending that accomplished this? Was that President more of a Republican than the Neocons that claim the Republican 'legacy' now?
No the one percent won't live in 100 houses. They also aren't the ones that bought all the houses that are currently owned at the moment.
Oh - so forcloseures AREN'T at record levels? Home ownership is actually within the grasp of the rest of the 99%? AFFORDABLE new homes are being built to accomodate the need for housing and young people really AREN'T forced to double and triple up in houses and apartments to survive? Tha's not MY experience, my friend.
That one % shoulders 20% of the income tax burden and control 35 % of the wealth.
Really? So 35% of the wealth doesn't incur 35% of the taxes? Or is it that income drops as wealth increases? Sounds like that 1% need another tax break. We can just increase the deficit to give it to them, though.
Further, I'd like to see where you get that % - it doesn't match figures I recall seeing - I'm at work or I'd research it more completely. Maybe later - but I have plans for tonight...
