Maybe its true, maybe its not.

Time to go cash in your McBush tokens for a free penile implant.

Bullshit, o’ one so full of shit.

You elected an oil criminal crony.

It’s actually YOUR fault stupid shit.

The truth hurts, but when the glove fits, you must NOT acquit.

Kinsley spends quite a bit of time examining economic records back to Kennedy/Johnson and Nixon, as well as Carter and the Reagan era. He does a sub-anlysis of Reagan through Bush 43 but that’s not the entire anlysis by any means.

it sounds like all you saw was the 1981-present stuff.

So the comparison Kinsley makes pits Clinton, previously governor of a more conservative state anyway, against Reagan and the two Bush Presidencies. I already argued that Clinton was more fiscally conservative because of the Republican controlled Congress, and I do not think the article refutes any of the claims I made against a bipartisan split considering the pitfalls he stumbles into. Push the study back to include more than a single Democratic President not heavily skewed already to be fiscally conservative, and I think that would change the findings dramatically to be more parable.

ok, let me put it in 6th grade economics. Lets say that Winnebago, who manufacturs out of Iowa cannot sell any of their product because of high gas prices. They begin to layoff people. The one person in this country who wont even let a vote on drilling/alt energy is Pelosi. Her obstruction is keeping prices high. Obama saying for months he will not drill is also keeping prices high and supply low. how much simpler can I make it?

Gas prices are falling. That completely undercuts your argument, but continue making an ass out of yourself.

cera Says:
I have a torn tendon on my 2nd left proximal phalanx, which makes typing difficult

Okay, so that excuses your typing… what’s your excuse for your faulty thinking?

Niffy Says:

Debt spending can be tolerated if circumstances permit and the ability to get back to a surplus are readily available. With huge outlays coming for social programs, this position is becoming obsolete unless spending for these programs decreases to acceptable levels

True enough, but deficit spending should be used as a short-term strategy, not as a permanent condition. As I understand mainstream economic theory (an imperfect understanding to be sure) it is wise for a nation to accumulate a surplus when the economy is strong (like Clinton did) and to go into deficit when the economy is weak, as a measure to pump more capital into the economy and keep people employed.

Bush was working on draining the surplus even before we were attacked. He said, “it’s your money, not the governments.” Then, when the economic slowdown hit after 9/11, the cushion Clinton had piled up was almost gone. bush plunged into deficit spending almost immediately, when fiscal policy based on sound fundamentals rather than childish resentments might have helped carry us through with less damage to our credit rating and ultimately less addition to the national debt.

I have a torn tendon on my 2nd left proximal phalanx, which makes typing difficult

You always have an excuse, my boy. Always an excuse.
Like when you claimed you have Asperger’s Disease, and that’s why you’re a 41 year old virgin who’s never dated.

debate?, all I get is assumptions about my philosophy and am called the most obscene things. I wont debate someone unless I get civil responses. its that simple

Translation:
I’m here to disrupt. I made a pretty asinine an*logy from the Clinton era, to which reasonable responses were made, to which I couldn’t refute, and thus, I side stepped the issue, and started another asinine subject. its that simple.
Oh, and I’m still a virgin!!!

Incidents like the S&L and sub-prime scandal are by design. They are for the sole purpose of taking money from the middle and lower class and putting it in the pockets of the wealthy minority of Americans.

I usually try to stay away from class warfare claims, but my understanding of the fiasco is that banks were making loans they shouldn’t have to unqualified clients that couldn’t pay for them. They relied on the housing boom to increase their home equity to sustain their loans, and when equity froze and dipped, they went under.

The problem was banks and lenders making loans that they normally would not have under different circumstances. The real question is did they make the loans because of the booming market, or because of government policies that dictated they loan to at-risk clients? I know what I think, but it leads to a discussion I do not want to get into in this thread.

the article is from 2005, but I think it’s safe to say that the economic performance of the Bush Economy over the intervening three years has not altered the results.

It’s pretty interesting reading. Enjoy.

August 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Amnesia sucks, huh? Me thinks who also have no idea about proper grammar and puntuation.

UnAmerican pos.

Yet this is his economics.

I continually find myself amazed at how many stone idiots are able to pay their mortgages and car payments. I guess intelligence doesn’t have a lot to do with making money.

That’s not to say that intelligence is a handicap; it’s not. It just doesn’t have much to do with it.

It is harder to find a handy graph for President and GDP growth, but according to an article documenting GDP growth under Bush at 7.2 in 2003 they mention “U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter at the fastest pace in nearly two decades.” So Bush had the highest in the past 20 years, going back to a height not hit since Reagan was in office. This tends to say, at least recently, Republican presidents had higher GDP growth than Clinton, but I will be the first to admit without better evidence, this house of cards could fall apart in a soft breeze.

As per debt, I could be skewered for this but I do not see national debt as that big of an issue as long as the number isn’t in the trillions (current no-no). Debt spending can be tolerated if circumstances permit and the ability to get back to a surplus are readily available. With huge outlays coming for social programs, this position is becoming obsolete unless spending for these programs decreases to acceptable levels.

personal attacks always result when the ‘other’ side has no argument– keep um coming I find them mildly humorous

derailing the thread because you can’t debate is what I find amusing.
Oh, and the consistent changing of your posting name.

Gawd. Where have I heard this BS before?

Hey! Are you our favorite misogynist wonder boy, JMH?
Well yes, your house is paid for because you LIVE WITH YOUR PARENTS!!!
Now, tell us the story of Urban Heat, Mr. Ivy League Stanford dude!