IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Question for all you Repo apologists out there...
Is it that all Republicans are pathological liars, or just the Bush family?

From "Read My Lips" to "Social Security is Off-Budget", it seems that power enables a bullshitter gene that causes them to say anything to get elected, followed by a complete reversal when their economic house of cards comes crashing down upon them.

What is it with these people?
jb4
Resistance is not futile...)
New As opposed to...
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski. - Bill Clinton.

My dog takes the same drugs as her but they cost much less. - Al Gore.

I didn't know what Col. North was doing. - Ronald Reagan.

I will not lie to you. - Jimmy Carter.

We did not invade Cambodia. - Richard Nixon.

We did not invade Cuba. - John Kennedy.

We did not fly over the USSR. - Dwight Eisenhower.

The first atomic bomb was dropped on a military base. - Harry Truman.

And on and on. See [link|http://www.motherjones.com/sideshow/prezlies.html|Presidential Lies and Consequences] at Mother Jones.

Politicians sometimes lie. It's not exclusively a "Repo" affliction.

Cheers,
Scott.
New How's that?
What did Carter lie about?
New A couple of examples.
[link|http://archive.nandotimes.com/nt/special/lang0216.html|A history of presidential lies
] from NandO.

Jimmy Carter: "I will never lie to you."

Yet Carter sometimes described himself during his campaign as a nuclear physicist when he was, in fact, educated at the Naval Academy as a nuclear engineer.

And Georgetown political science professor Stephen Wayne observes, "However much Carter made of never telling lies, he ended up in secret negotiations which Hamilton Jordan conducted for him with the Ayatollah Khomeini's representatives in Paris, and certainly not telling the whole truth about it."

But Wayne explains, "Presidents can't always disclose everything. And sometimes they are forced to provide misinformation."


FWIW.

I'm not claiming they're important lies, just that he didn't tell the full truth about everything (and nobody seriously expected him to. That was, to my mind, why his promise was disingenuous).

Cheers,
Scott.
New Wow, are those nits ever small
Nuclear physicist vs. engineer ... I couldn't tell you the difference without looking it up, and I probably know more about both than 90% of the American voting public. That's a wash.

And not telling the world the full details of ongoing negotiations with a hostile foreign power, hell he'd have to keep some secrets. Keeping secrets isn't the same as lying.

If that's the worst anyone can come up with, that's just fine in my book.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
New I am unmoved.
The only way you could say that by withholding details of negotiations with the Ayatollah was "lying" would be to accuse Carter of a "lie by ommision". That's harsh, (to say the least). I mean, it's not like he went to the media and said, "We will never negotiate with terrorists" and then secretly traded arms for hostages and profits to divert to yet more terrorists.

Would Carter have been "lying" if some one in the White House Press Corps had said, "Are you negotiating with the Ayatollah" and Carter replied, "I cannot, for security reasons, go into that."? You seem to be saying he would, I think not.

And Physicist/Engineer? Wow! Imagine a politician telling that big a whopper during a campaign!
New Jimmy sure was a different President.
Although I was a little young (I was either 5 or 6 when he was elected - some joker put my birthday right next to election day!) to remember his election, I've always heard that he didn't so much win as Ford lost.

Kinda like Shrub and Gore. (Hell, whoever "won" that election, I wouldn't say that they won - rather that the other had lost. Nobody won that election.)

Anyways, he always reminded me of Mr. Rogers, and still does today. In fact, when I was a kid, I tended to get them confused. It might have been the sweater. I also had a crush on his daughter. (Anybody who gets to have a treehouse was cool in my book - and it was doubly cool that she got to have it on the whitehouse lawn!)

He has this weird kind of essence to him - of honesty, truth, and righteousness - that no other post-Kennedy president has ever seemed to capture. Reagan was a fake to me, Bush was a policy wonk, Clinton schmoozed charm, and Shrub is Shrub. Let's not go into Nixon.

In addition, his post-Presidential work in Habitat for Humanity is pretty damn cool. My feeling is he's the kind of president we need, despite his fumbles - and as such, not the kind of president that we'll ever get again.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
New He'll take the tobacco defense
"Everybody knew our surplus numbers were bogus. Anyone who really cared about social spending keeping up with inflation would have known to vote for the other guy. We openly ridiculed the very idea of keeping the SS fund safe from predation!"

Giovanni
New Odds that we run a deficit b4 the Resident is out of office?
New I'm not taking that bet (regardless of the odds)!
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
New Out of curiosity, what are you talking about? Budgets?
Let's take the original projections. I'll take the figures from the Clinton News Network: $275 billion surplus.

Let's take the tax refund. $40 billion. That means we still have a $235 billion surplus.

Ahah! The economy has slowed down (of course this has to be Bush's fault, despite the fact they're still operating on the last Clinton budget), so the new projection (with tax refund still taken into account) is $200 billion. Well, a decrease in revenues of $35 billion isn't that hard to believe.

We still have a surplus!

And what's this stuff about dipping into Social Security revenues? You've swallowed the fiction of the Social Security trust fund? Those revenues have always been gimmicked with bonds and stuffed into the general fund anyway. If you pay this supposed shortfall, you still have a surplus of $190 billion or so.

And that's assuming there's a surplus anyway. Pages like [link|http://mwhodges.home.att.net/deficit-trusts.htm|Grandad's Trust Fund and Deficit Report] or [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8876-2001Jul30.html|The Washington Post] are readily available via a Google search. The Washington Post may be more credible, and they essentially say there are $1 trillion of "bonds" in the "trust fund" that will have to be paid back from somewhere:

"These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures -- but only in a bookkeeping sense. . . . They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits."
You've been coached!
New Question for all you Repo doubters
What specifically are you calling a Bush lie? What did he, or his lackeys say to get your goat?

Also, how do know that something is said by a politico is in fact a lie (or truth for that matter), especially when the media has the tendency to print quotes completely out of context?

I keep hearing from Bush, Cheney, Rush, et. al. that the >surplus< is down but that there is still a substantial surplus (i.e. taxes are still too high). I've read this in the Wall Street Journal too. But then again, I keep hearing sound bites from Daschel, Gephart, Rangel, McAuliffe, Al Hunt, et. al. that the (miniscule) tax cut has totally killed off the surplus and we are going to have to bleed Social Security to keep the country afloat. Which is it? Who do you believe?
Ray
New As with most other politicians, telling when Bush is lying-
is really quite simple. Look at his lips. Are they moving? Is sound coming out? If the answer to those questions is "yes", then the scum sucking bastard is most likely lying.

This method is highly reliable in most situations (89%+ accuracy). If, however, the slimeball is under oath (remember Clinton?) the accuracy of this method drops to about 50/50.
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
New In this case, however
I tend to believe Bush rather than the shrill-sounding Democrats who are looking to discredit the entire budget, with budget negotiations coming up.

But see my earlier post - both sides of the aisle are very likely lying through their teeth about there even *being* a surplus in the first place.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New I think you have it right
The budget seems to me to be a house of cards built on a foundation of statistics and other lies.
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
New Try to follow along here, now...
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/28/budget/index.html| From CNN:]
This year's federal budget surplus has plunged to $153 billion because of the nation's economic doldrums and the Bush administration's tax cut, meaning the federal government will have to cover $9 billion of spending by dipping into Social Security, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday.


The CBO tends not to sugar-coat things to please a particular constituency.

What "got my goat" is the following (from the same article):
That is politically significant because both Bush and congressional lawmakers from both parties have pledged to avoid dipping into the retirement fund reserve.


The reason? Again, from the same article:
For the 10-year period from 2002 to 2011, the CBO calculates the nation will have a total surplus of $3.4 trillion -- three-quarters of which would be made up of excess monies in the Social Security trust fund. That number, however, is $2.2 trillion less than was projected just last May, and the reason for most of that drop is the $1.35 trillion tax cut championed by President Bush. [emphasis added]


So here we have a "tax cut" (that nobody outside of the "true believers" really wanted) happening at a time of economic downturn (fewer people working, or not making as much income as previously = fewer tax receipts...DUH!), resulting in the "surplus" being...uh, less that expected. The result: a(nother) broken promise (read: lie) not to dip into the perilously balanced Social Security Ponzi scheme^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfund.

There. that should be clear enough for even a Republican to understand.
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
New Re: Try to follow along here, now...
Tax cuts to stimulate the economy and increase Federal revenue worked under Kennedy. Worked under Reagan (though, with Reagan, the effect was rather spoiled by a massive increase of federal spending.)

There's reason to think it can work again, though I am dubious about the "rebate" format.

I would think even a Democrat could come to terms with this, especially when I cite the Holy Name Kennedy - who, in retrospect, is so far to the right of most modern Democrats that he'd be considered a conservative.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New Re: Try to follow along here, now...
I see you've bit.

As far as it all goes...it all goes into general funds. Everything. Social Security and everything else.

And the CBO has forecast that the 10 year projected surplus has dropped from 5.4 to something like 3 and a half trillion.

Thats 3 1/2 trillion of OUR money the government doesn't need to make the bills.

Your worried about a 9 billion (if true) cash shortfall this year (which is still CLINTON's budget)

Lets give Bush a chance to pass his own budget and see if he needs to tap Social Security then (as if there's some bank account somewhere with all that SS money in it (ha ha))

Funny how the Dems play this game. Its THEIR budget and THEIR spending programs causing this problem...and THEIR tax programs cut more revenue faster than Bush's did...

So if we'd have listened to them THEN...we'd be even worse off.

But you seem to want to listen to them NOW...cause they're being critical of W. A very popular agenda item for you.,

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Well...if it's their programs and their budget...
then it was their surplus last year.
New I'm sure there's some...
...point you're going to come back with after I agree with that logic...

of course...it really was 'our' surplus....

I, quite frankly, want my share of it back.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I want every penny of that surplus
Surplus? My ass. It's "Excuse to spend every penny we have and a billion more".

Refund ALL the so-called surplus. Now. That weak pinheaded Bush refund iis a pig's ear sewed onto a donkey. (Imagery deliberate, for dense people donkey=democrats)

Not that there is any surplus of any kind anyway.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New IT'S BAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCK!
"Lets give Bush a chance ..."

Anybody but me remember the tv ads in 1983 with the Postman coming by, chatting nicely and saying (about Reagan then) "Give the guy a chance."?

GACK! "Here we go again." -RR
New Link to Sources
[link|http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3019&sequence=0&from=7| CBO source ]
[link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/msr.html| White House : Office of Management and Budget ]
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3037-2001Aug27.html| Washington Post ]

Synopsis: The White House figures there's a real after Social Security surplus of 0.5 Billion (roughly). Congressional Budget Office figures there's going to be a 9 billion deficit. Rush and others include Social Security revenue and claim there's a $150+ Billion surplus.

New surplus, what surplus?
tax revenues not from Social Security thru 2018 showed no surplus. SS show a surplus and since they dont put the money in fort knox and are unwilling to give it to me to invest :) they put it in the general fund for 2% interest to cover general spending.
Thyis spending can be used to lower national debt (good) or cover current and future spending (bad) either way I will be working for walmart until I hit the floor and die. Unless My kids make good and my wife leaves me then I can be found in a tent at mile 71.5 of Hiway 1 Alaska.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New Hee Hee
What a pile of fucking morons, eh? Anyone who buys their shit is just as much a fucking moron as they are, Harris.

Once again, they've destroyed the economy. Worst in eight years, which is just about the time that Bush pere left us alone for good. Or did he?

What really astonishes me is that these venal, stupid, lying sons-of-bitches manage to regularly get people to vote for them. Just how stupid are Americans? Is there any bottom to the pit of their ignorance?
New Ho Ho
I don't know how you can say Bush and Co. have ruined the economy when they've only been in office since Jan. 2001. You might argue that Bush has made a bad situation worse but that probably won't be answerable until we have the benefit of hindsight. While many politicos are complaining that Bush's tax cut is too big and will sink the economy further, many economists quoted in the Wall Street Journal are noting that, if anything, the tax cut is too small to kick-start the economy. I personally find the WSJ to be more credible than the likes of Daschel and friends. Anyway, any action by Bush and/or Greenspan takes many months before the effects are felt. Macro-economics is a massive ship and the White House is a pretty small rudder. Look how long it took the US to recover from the Great Depression.

Another thing, if you'll recall, the stock market started to tank back in March 2000 (that's 10 months before Bush came along). Furthermore, financial analysts and market timers in the know (e.g. Bob Brinker www.bobbrinker.com is one I follow) were predicting in 1999 that the bubble would burst in early 2000 and were instructing their audiences to move their equities into cash. So apparently, way back in 1999, the financial indicators were there and the economy was well on it's way to a decline. Greenspans aggressive rate hikes in 2000, executed under Clinton's watch, only secured this fate.
Ray
New Jabbering is no use
1920s - Republicans destroy the very basis of American life, causing massive societal upheavals.

1930s - FDR and company gradually rebuild the economy. The war helped.

1948-1952 - More or less steady state.

1952-1960 - Stagnation, ground laid for inflation. Steady rise of taxes.

1960s - strong economic growth.

1968-1976 - disaster. Wage and price controls, sprialing inflation. Tax rates explode. Government acquires unprecedented power to intrude into private lives.

1976-1982 - recovery.

1982-1988 - Supply side economics is utterly discredited.

1988-1992 - massive layoffs, deep recession.

1992-2000 - biggest boom in history. Everybody works.

2000-on - back to disaster.

Republicans = economic chaos and destruction for working people, and big government to squash people, steal their cash, and grind them into dust.


New About that '92-2000 period...
As much as I despise Shrub and his Daddy's Boys, the economy was headed south long before Shrub ever got his grubby little hands on Daddy's old empire. Now, as towards whether he'll make things worse...
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
New Denonthinker
There are people who can think, and there are those who gulp media garbage.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New Jabbering is no use - agreed
Interesting time line but it doesn't refute what I've said in the prior post.

The time line complete ignores other equally important factors such as which parties controlled the House and Senate, international crises, natural disasters, industrial/economic revolutions (i.e. poliferation of automobiles, the transitor, the Internet, etc.), the arms/space race, etc.

Also, FDR had two terms to work on the economy before the War and the US didn't really recover until after the War. Why is Bush only given 8 months before judgement is passed?

Also, the Reps. fiscal policies of today are much more closely aligned with JFK's than are today's Dems. Ever hear JFK's 'we need a tax cut to stimulate the economy' speech? It really ticked of Teddy when the RNC played the speech on the radio to push for the Bush tax cut. Was JFK a closet Rep.?
Ray
New Why don't you tie those dates...
...to the wars.

You may find some beneficial insight into what REALLY makes the economy tick.

Then add price of energy (specifically in the last 40 years...oil)...add a 6 month lag to this indicator.

Ok...now that you've done this...you've pretty much hit the major movement +/- in the economy.

The President (whoever it is) can't really do anything about the economy on his own. The major economic factors are completely out of his control.

But, of course, this does nothing to forward your "all Repo's are evil bastards" agenda.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I musta been sleeping for 8 years, but...
What war did we have between 1992 and 2000?

And how exactly was it that the economy tanked during the "Gulf War"? It couldn't have been the Republican "leadership" during that time, could it have?
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
New slap slap
The economy did not tank during the Gulf war. Nor, despite all the hysterical posturings of the Democrats, was it tanking during the election campaign.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New Huh?
Are you missing the main point? I think its obvious that you are.

The vast majority of the economy is, quite simply, out of the control of politicians.

So we can have all the discussions about blaming President A for something and praising President B for something else...when they had little or nothing to do with it.


You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New hoorah! someone who understands basic economics!
gummit can only supress unwanted trade, shift costs from one sector to another but has fsckall to do with productivity, inventory stocks and prifit/loss.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New Capital Formation
You are ignoring the impact of government policies on capital formation. High taxes or interest rates or constrictions on the money supply restrict the availability of capital. Without capital businesses cannot expand or create new ventures.

I'd agree with BP that for the most part the economy is out of the control of politicians. I'd just add the condition that they don't know what impact their policies will have and so cannot be said to be in control.
New the availability of capital has nothing to do with govt
while the fed controls the interest rate it only controls the central rate. Capital with 50% interest can be raised if the venture needs to. They only control consumer spending and rates not business. Private money is always available for the right projects.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New There is a small effect...
...when you take a combination of tax policy and interest rates...you can >marginally< affect capital formation....usually in timing only...by delaying certain spending...

However, that effect is secondary..as most major capital formation is a function of the underlying competitive conditions in the market...

For example...IF there is a demand for 1 million pounds of di-methyl doorknobs and production capacity of 700000 pounds....someone, somewhere will fill that capacity void...OR...if a technology advancement is made that allows a process to improve into a low-cost position...that capital formation will occur REGARDLESS of government policy...assuming...of course...that the policy is within established norms. (30-50% tax rates...5-15% interest)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New So lemme get this striaght..
[...] but has fsckall to do with productivity, inventory stocks and prifit[sic]/loss.


So the "tax cut" would have absolutely nothing to do with "improving the current business climate" (or some other such mealymouthmumblefuck), according to your postulate.

Just wanted to get that straight....
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
New according to me yeah, propaganda value only
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New Why that's.. that's - unDemocrat AND unRepublican!! of you \ufffd
New That may be the nicest thing said to me in this forum:)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I had at times suspected that, behind that calm facade
- the one pushing, some putative idea that an actual meaning might lie behind the political doggerel of the One Party with Two Right Wings (?)

behind that - umm, might lurk a panther poised to strike at their metaphorical jugulars! SHOUTING... (well ~)

I'm sick and tired of this meaningless BS which passes for 'debate' and the bald-faced corruption behind the absence of any campaign reform

...and I'm Not Gonna Take It ANY MORE !!!




Well.. something like that, "sent to everyone on The List!"
(including the local MBA-mill and Econ faculty)





:-\ufffd
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..

New Policies can have some impact
but it takes years for them to take effect.

We're currently seeing Clintonesque policies in action. By the time Bush is up for reelection, everyone will have forgotten the Clinton policies and concentrating on Bush.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New LOL!

Policies can have some impact
but it takes years for them to take effect.

It would be really great if people could get their stories straight. Otherwise, someone might be lead to believe that Democratic (Clinton) policies take years to take effect but Republican (Reagan) policies only take 6 months to effect.


Of course, Bepatient's earlier post was even more hilarious...


I knew I wanted Bush elected.....


Oh, and for the record, I agree with you both! :-)

New Which one?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New This one...

The vast majority of the economy is, quite simply, out of the control of politicians.

So we can have all the discussions about blaming President A for something and praising President B for something else...when they had little or nothing to do with it.

I love this quote simply because it's the antithesis of Republican philosophy for the last 20 years. Reagan was loved because he offered a tax cut that 'stimulated' the economy (according to Republicans). Hell, the loss of George Bush (I) was due to his tax hike which 'hurt the economy' (according to Republicans).


Personally, I felt this was hogwash. The President of the US can not control the economy (imo). But even Clinton's 8 years of fairly good economic status didn't detour this train of thought, rather Republicans, instead of crediting Clinton with anything, merely stated that Clinton was riding on Reagan's changes (now 20 years into the future).


Ah, but put a Republican president in charge and add a downturn to the economy (which appeared right on schedule) and suddenly the tune changes. Suddenly Presidents can't truly affect the economy and it's fairly foolish to expect them to be able to do so.


Gotta love it.

New Ah...
...so you think its just apologist talk and the Republicans just can't stomach the thought that Clinton did wonderful things and that Bush Jr single handedly has destroyed the economy in 6 months?

And you thought my post was funny?

Tell me...what was it that Bush did to throw my company into this slowdown a full 6 months before he took office?

If he's THAT good...maybe we should send him to countries who's economy we want to destroy....your thinking would have their economy failing before he even booked the flights.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Muhahaha

...so you think its just apologist talk and the Republicans just can't stomach the thought that Clinton did wonderful things and that Bush Jr single handedly has destroyed the economy in 6 months?

Amazing...and yet Jimmy Carter must've also did terrible things and Reagan single handedly restored the economy in 6 months. (Oh wait, you believe this!)


BTW: you stated that the President has limited effect on the economy, so now you're blaming Clinton?


New Damn...I thought you could read...
...instead of "read in"

Oh well...I was wrong.

Try to read the first 3 words in the quote...read them SLOWLY...so that you understand that >I< think no such thing.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Oh I know, you left yourself weasel room
with the "Vast majority of..." line. I don't deny that.

But what is interesting is that Reagan is given credit for 'turning around the economy'. Now...somehow, Presidents (for the most part) shouldn't be held accountable for the economy. And yes, you basically said this in--



And the economy thing should just validate the fact that it is not reality that he's speaking about...but his rabidly lopsided viewpoint that has all Republicans as evil, money grubbing satanists...or some such nonsense. Reagan inhereted the worst conomy in the history of this country, save the Depression, and the combined policies (and his appointments) gave us the longest expansion in history. All Clinton had to do was not rock the boat.

[link|http://pub13.ezboard.com/fiwetheypolitics.showMessage?topicID=978.topic&index=20| source ]


New Well...lets see...
First there was the appointment of Greenspan and the reduction of the highest tax brackets.

Then (and the Dems were responsible for this) there was the HUGE increase in federal spending.

All good things from a short term economic viewpoint.

Then...OPEC decided (and this had nothing to do with government...and "decided" is kind of a misnomer) that oil prices should drop.

And...the dollar decided to drop versus the rest of the worlds currencies..leading to a huge increase in foreign capital...mostly Japanese and German...

And...all of these things made folks a little more likely to invest in the stock market...(now we're into the end of Bush and start of Clinton)...and since the market was good...people had more money to spend...which they...of course, did...

Which caused the economy to expand faster...and so on...and so on...

(keep in mind this is an oversimplification...no accounting for large employment and the investment of pensions...etc..on the value of the market...none of which involves gubment)....

Then...something really bad happened...in combination...oil went to $30+ a barrel and natural gas went to $12/mcf and electricity followed (being largely dependent on the above 2 since the "greenies" forced everyone from coal and nuclear). These things were bad enough...but Greenspan...in his first real mistake...helped apply the brakes (which were goiong to be hit regardless) by raising the rates too quickly...leading to investor concern...dropping the market...people have less money...less spending...slower economy...higher energy costs..less profit for industry, less capital investment, job cuts, less consumer spending because of higher unemployment, (insert vicious cycle here)...and now its Sept 2001.

And there's not a damn thing anyone is going to be able to do about it. Not GW, not AL Gore (even if he'd have won), not Clinton and not the ghost of Ronnie.

The exact same thing that caused the disaster in the 70's has successfully squashed this latest expansion. All we can do now is soften the blow (reduce taxes...done...drop interest rates...done) and ride it out. The "experts" were saying it would last into the 4th qtr 2001...the indicators I see in doing my daily grind point to sometime in the 3rd qtr 2002. (of course...I'm not in government employ...so I don't have to worry about making anybody feel better)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Well, I think you're still looking at the trees too much...
but it's a fair assessment of the forest. There was a fairly nice upswing in the early 80's followed by a normal decline (which Bush senior got blamed for, imo). Clinton caught the end of the downswing and rode it back on the up and the economy as a whole has been about ready to go back to a downswing. (These downswing generally last 2-4 years, imo).

But then again, I don't think Presidents can have any effect on the economy. Blaming Bush for the economy is as silly as praising Reagan for his.


What I find interesting is that certain people are changing their tunes...

New Presidential politics...
...for what they're worth...are just that....

They will get credit or blame for what happens on their watch.

However...

I find it interesting that Ronnie got blamed for the deficits....since his action was to lower taxes...which increased government revenue (just as it should...anti-intuitive as it may seem)

I find it interesting that the slams around here have GW responsible for the current economic slump...even though it had started almost a year before he took office.

And some of the folks around here just seem to think that one side is BAD and one side is GOOD...and Ashton has it all figured out...that both sides are the same and the rest is just semantic bullshit.

Some of the other things that bother me lately...the Democrats distancing themselves from Condit...when the only thing he did was sleep with an intern and then lie about it for a couple of months.

And...what fun would arguing about politics be...if someone didn't come in here and take the other side...it'd just be one big liberal love-fest around here without me...(with some exceptions that I know of...being even more hard line Libertarian than myself.

Whoopee!
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Clearly not so.
As clearly demonstrated on [link|http://www.stariq.com/pagetemplate/article.asp?PageID=463|this] page, US depressions are clearly Saturn's fault.

Clearly you, of all the posters here, should clearly know that.

Clearly.



Clearly yours,
Scott.
:-)
New Nancy
So that's why Nancy Reagan was consulting with an astrologer. She was secretly directing the Fed's economic policy...
Ray
New Bizarre :)
This kind of thing is called "horary astrology" and I don't buy it, since an event is not a person with a soul that can experience synchronicity. You might as well give a geological explanation to depressions, or better, one based on economics :)

I do find it very interesting however that you happened to mention Saturn, which as a planetary energy represents the essence of the Republican worldview. The Saturn-Uranus polarity is very much like the pseudo-tension between Republicans and Democrats, who as it turns out are more or less inverted copies of each other instead of being truly different.
New Re: Ho Ho
Ok, I wasn't going to get into this one, but I just wanted to say that regardless of when the economy began to tank, I blame one guy for the situation we're in - Alan Greenspan. There were clear indicators that the economy was slowing significantly, and a few months before the election he chose to ignore those indicators and leave interest rates alone when he almost certainly should have lowered them. And it was his previous raising of interest rates that started the slowdown in the first place.

Now, if Greenspan were a liberal Democrat, I probably wouldn't defend Clinton on this issue. But I found Greenspan's inaction at that time suspicious at best. Looked to me like he pulled a Sandra Day.
New Can we get an AMEN!
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New But can G. be blamed for the massive gullibility that Was
.com?

Mantra for those years
"I *Want* to be rilly rilly Rich; don't know much, but I can make a web page and generate TLAs before breakfast. I Deserve to be Rich.. so let's --"

Any more than we can focus the blame for the cancerous growth of Windoze ~~ "because folks Like the idea of One Size Fits All.. and it's so EZ too" ? (Never mind - who in fact: owns my data, forever)

Methinks:

We have met the enemy..
And he is us


..in the immortal words of Walt Kelly.

In a nation of fads (ever so much EZier than actual thought), with decisionmakers now forever known as PHBs: who needs an individual scapegoat?

Dumbth is everywhere..


A.
     Question for all you Repo apologists out there... - (jb4) - (59)
         As opposed to... - (Another Scott) - (5)
             How's that? - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                 A couple of examples. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     Wow, are those nits ever small - (drewk)
                     I am unmoved. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                         Jimmy sure was a different President. - (inthane-chan)
         He'll take the tobacco defense - (GBert)
         Odds that we run a deficit b4 the Resident is out of office? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
             I'm not taking that bet (regardless of the odds)! -NT - (jb4)
         Out of curiosity, what are you talking about? Budgets? - (wharris2)
         Question for all you Repo doubters - (rsf) - (10)
             As with most other politicians, telling when Bush is lying- - (DonRichards) - (2)
                 In this case, however - (wharris2) - (1)
                     I think you have it right - (DonRichards)
             Try to follow along here, now... - (jb4) - (6)
                 Re: Try to follow along here, now... - (wharris2)
                 Re: Try to follow along here, now... - (bepatient) - (4)
                     Well...if it's their programs and their budget... - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                         I'm sure there's some... - (bepatient) - (1)
                             I want every penny of that surplus - (wharris2)
                     IT'S BAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCK! - (mmoffitt)
         Link to Sources - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
             surplus, what surplus? - (boxley)
         Hee Hee - (deSitter) - (35)
             Ho Ho - (rsf) - (34)
                 Jabbering is no use - (deSitter) - (30)
                     About that '92-2000 period... - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                         Denonthinker - (wharris2)
                     Jabbering is no use - agreed - (rsf)
                     Why don't you tie those dates... - (bepatient) - (23)
                         I musta been sleeping for 8 years, but... - (jb4) - (22)
                             slap slap - (wharris2)
                             Huh? - (bepatient) - (20)
                                 hoorah! someone who understands basic economics! - (boxley) - (5)
                                     Capital Formation - (Decco Dave) - (2)
                                         the availability of capital has nothing to do with govt - (boxley)
                                         There is a small effect... - (bepatient)
                                     So lemme get this striaght.. - (jb4) - (1)
                                         according to me yeah, propaganda value only -NT - (boxley)
                                 Why that's.. that's - unDemocrat AND unRepublican!! of you \ufffd -NT - (Ashton) - (2)
                                     That may be the nicest thing said to me in this forum:) -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                         I had at times suspected that, behind that calm facade - (Ashton)
                                 Policies can have some impact - (wharris2) - (10)
                                     LOL! - (Simon_Jester) - (9)
                                         Which one? -NT - (bepatient) - (8)
                                             This one... - (Simon_Jester) - (7)
                                                 Ah... - (bepatient) - (6)
                                                     Muhahaha - (Simon_Jester) - (5)
                                                         Damn...I thought you could read... - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                             Oh I know, you left yourself weasel room - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                                                                 Well...lets see... - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                     Well, I think you're still looking at the trees too much... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                         Presidential politics... - (bepatient)
                     Clearly not so. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                         Nancy - (rsf)
                         Bizarre :) - (deSitter)
                 Re: Ho Ho - (kelzer) - (2)
                     Can we get an AMEN! -NT - (bepatient)
                     But can G. be blamed for the massive gullibility that Was - (Ashton)

> I can't quite tell the difference latterly between IWT and an encounter group moderated by Livia Soprano.
158 ms