Kerry proposes raising minimum wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Friday proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $7 an hour by 2007, which he contended would benefit working women more than any other group.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"If a president can go out and fight for four years to provide over a trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America, we can fight for a few months to raise the minimum wage for the poorest people in America,"----------------------------------------------------------------
[Kerry said]"Some people stand up and say, 'Oh gosh, don't raise the minimum wage, that's going to hurt us in this small business.' But you know what? It never has."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry said three of four women who would benefit from the increase are adults. Such a boost in the minimum wage, which has not changed from $5.15 since 1997, would provide a family with enough money to buy 10 months of groceries or pay for eight months of rent, he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry said Americans are "living with a minimum wage that is lower in value that it's been at any time since 1949 when Harry Truman is president. That's unacceptable."
--------------------------------------------------------------
"If you're down at the bottom of the labor market, an increase of $3,800 a year can make a real difference to families struggling to put food on the table, struggling to pay the rent,"
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/kerry.wages.ap/index.html

What a coup, Kerry hopes to energize the disenfranchised segment of American society, the working poor. They could potentially be swayed on to the Democratic ticket. That is a very part of the voting population, should Kerry energize the traditional democratic base, and then Bush doesn’t have much of chance. More Americans are democrats then Republicans, Democrats could win many elections if they energize their bases, and they will sweep into power. National security is on the minds of many but the wallet book more so.

Obviously by the time the idiots stop twiddling their thumbs and actually pass the law, $7 an hour won't be enough for five months of grocery.

Even if they do pass it by 2007.

David:

What I meant was innately, the country is innately more democratic then republican. Those temporary measures don’t prove anything but temporary feelings. More people in the US are innately Democratic then Republican.

I suppose you mean people will automatically be Democrats because it sound better, sweeter, more nurturing, kinder, gentler, blah blah blah.

I didn’t anything near that, what I was saying is that most people in the United States are much more in tune with democratic values, then Republican. Democrats lose most elections because they don’t get out the vote. It is generally accepted in American politics that the more people vote the more likely the democrats would win. I believe what Tiassa said a while ago, Americans are more liberal then we give them credit for. Remember Bush didn’t win the general election (in democratic terms).

I have many times observed kids who grow up thinking basic Democrat sweetness and goodness all the way through college (my guess is this is the brainwashing of the mainstream media). However, it is amazing how fast they become Republicans when they get their first paycheck and find out how much they are paying in taxes!

That’s great but the reality is that college kids (who are mostly dems) are more likely to vote then some worker. The democratic base is more activists, and more populist then the GOP. Dems appeal to those in societies who are just starting out, and who have a utilitarian conscience. Republicans for their part are much more selfish and individualistic (usually to the detriment of the society). I’ve noticed that Dems lose when they make the good time come round, and they win when the Republicans usually fuck it up.

electoral college has its benefits small populated states dont become disinfranchised and aspire to nationalise and succeed. Being selfish is not exactly a bad thing if you are a democrat people should be able to be and act selfish and satisfy their needs first. I particularly dont feel like giving up my computer to feed a hungry kid in africa. If you think this is selfish too bad I dont give a damn. Democrats have this populist idea that everyone should pitch in for the idea and work their azz off to supply it with tax dollars at their own lifestyles expense this is simply fasaded by niceties and other crap which gets uncovered when you get to the truth of the matter.

Dems loose when their spending aspirations come out and people find out how much higher their taxes will jump in order to supply those ambitions. When someone finds out that their taxes will go up by 11% after a 9% increase the same year and they will have to shell out another 600 to 1200 bucks for their car which happened in California people turn out Repuclican and vote their Governor out of office.

The Dems appeal to the have-nots who want something for nothing and the Reps appeal to those who work for a living.

I would have to disagree with the semantics of that sentence, the Dems appeal to the “other half” of American society. Not the NASCAR, WASP, Rambo wannabe’s, Jerry Springer guests. Dems appeal to those who want to live a little better in the US, and expect the gov’t to give them something in return for their taxes. Many of the best educated in society are usually liberals, and those who understand the concept of utilitarianism. Also if anyone Bush has been one of the largest socialists in American history, Regan too, only FDR (who saved the US) was bigger (out of necessity).

In the US, the population tends to vote Dem (gravey train) when things are good.

Sorry but election history says quite a different story, Eisenhower (recession in the late 50’s early 60’s) > Kennedy (growth in economy) assignated . Johnson (continued economic growth) > Nixon (stagflation) > Ford (the dumps of 1975) > Carter (got the short end of the stick) > Reagan (expansion but at a cost)> Bush Sr. (lol, 1992) > Clinton (turned the nation around with growth and fiscal surplus’) > Bush (destroyed all development of the last 8 years, and still over 1 million job losses under his reign). As one can clearly see Dems have a good history of perking up the nation’s economy, at the chagrin of the GOP. The best example of course would be Hoover/FDR.

The Dems ruin the good times with high taxes and high interest and lots of feel-good social/environmental programs. The country goes into a recession and the country runs back to the Reps to bail them out.

Clinton did all that, and it seems the country went through it’s largest expansion ever… your rhetoric simply doesn’t correspond with reality.

The Reps tend to tighten belts and be more fiscally conservative while lowering taxes (so the deficit might go either way under the Reps) but nobody likes to tighten their belts for very long - its uncomfortable even if its the right thing to do.

That’s why under Clinton the country projected $5 trillion surpluses now it forecasts budget deficits until at least 2040? Traditional Conservatives are pissed at Bush for mortgaging the US’ economy to the Chinese, and Japanese. The Dems have taken that role from the GOP, and the American public seems to think so.

The economy is getting better and should continue to get better as we climb out of the current recession.

This expansion exists mostly because of low interest rates, I expect a rapid deceleration if they start going back up. To stem the grow of Inflation good ole Greenspan is going to have to do something.

See... your doing the Dem dance... You have to understand there is a lag in the economy which means what happens today is the result of public policy influences of two or three years ago.

So then it wasn’t Carter’s policies that made the US go into the shit hole it was Ford/Nixon? It was republican economics that started the American depression back in the 30’s? etc? Bush hasn’t helped the economy at all, under his reign the economy is not moving sufficiently to stop the lag at home.

Clinton did not have the largest expansion ever, Reagan did.

No, Clinton created 32 million jobs Regan about 16 million. By GDP:

GDP growth in 1995 US$
Regan: $1.5 trillion (1981-89)
Clinton: $2.2 trillion (1992-01)

So I don’t know where you got your numbers, but you are wrong.

Clinton raised taxes and slowed the growth in the economy so that it topped out in the late '90s and started down in '00. This is the result of Clinton tax increases in the early '90s which went into effect in the mid '90s. Clinton, far from creating an expansion actually killed the expansion.

Yes Clinton raised taxes, but he made the fundamentals of the American economy compensate for that. Most Americans would rather pay Clinton aged taxes for the Clinton economy rather then any Bush tax cut (which is actually a massive tax hike). The economy under Clinton did expand significantly. Under Bush the economy stagnated, and tax cuts were excessive and were not implemented correctly. Greenspan supported tax cuts as long as concurrent cuts were made in spending, no rather Bush increased the Budget by 15%, and that’s excluding Iraq. In the long term the US will suffer greatly from this momentary tax cut.

It takes a couple of years of good fiscal and tax policy to turn the economy up or a couple of years of bad fiscal and tax policy to turn it down, but it can be turned down quite quickly by Greenspan and higher interest rates (which he knows very well), which is why he told Congress this week that inflation was not a concern and interest rates are likely to stay low.

Can I have a link showing me Greenspan stated that? Secondly interest rates cannot stay this low for much longer anyways. Because the economist is starting to get scared about the creeping threat from inflation:

Successfully, as it turned out: inflation and long-term bond yields peaked in 1980, and have, with a few bumps, fallen ever since. Now they are rising again, though for how long and how far is moot. Heady growth, creeping inflation and a fear that the Fed might be tardy in raising rates, as it is universally expected to do on June 30th, had recently sent ten-year bond yields to above 4.8%, from their low a year ago of 3.1%. Certainly, the great and the good from the Fed have sounded notably more hawkish about inflation recently, from which many observers have inferred that it might raise rates by more than the quarter-point that the market has been expecting.

And as I said the problems with the American economy is GREAT, your “boom” is a direct result of debt accumulation:

It is, after all, that very indebtedness that has stayed the Fed’s hand in raising rates from their present, derisory level. Unfortunately, keeping them so low for so long has made a bad problem worse, [because it has caused a stampede into assets—houses—that are now horridly expensive by any reasonable measure; and because a big chunk of those assets is now financed with floating-rate rather than fixed-rate mortgages.
---------------------------------------‘
Fuelled by cheap mortgages, the housing boom has also enabled America’s less-than-thrifty consumers to cash in the equity on their homes. Home-equity lines of credit (helocs) have soared even faster than house prices, are rising at 30% or so a year and now amount to more than $250 billion. Most helocs are variable-rate loans. Add in the surge in non-mortgage household debt in recent years, say the two CIBC economists, and almost a quarter of all household debt would immediately be affected by higher rates—70% higher than in 1994.
-------------------------------------------‘
All of which would be bad enough, but there is worse. According to The Economist’s house-price indices, property prices in America have risen by more than half since 1997, leaving them at record levels compared with rents and wages. Though property prices there are not as frothy as in some countries (even the normally staid governor of the Bank of England was moved this week to warn about Britain’s giddy house prices), at current interest rates, house prices would need to fall 10% or so to be anything appoaching fair value. They are, in other words, expensive—and in some places very expensive. Together with the prospect of higher rates, perhaps that is why in America they rose by only 1% in the first quarter, the smallest quarterly increase in six years, and fell in some areas.


Your economy is artificially being pumped up in the worst possible way. Inflation is indeed creeping back into the picture, low interest rates leads to bubbles, and this is one of them that is just about ready to burst. Reminds me of Japan pre-1990.

Much of his problems were due to high Fed interest rates. The Fed thought they could control the economy and inflation using interest rates and they found out they had lots of capacity for ruining an economy but not much capacity for building one. They are not likely to make those mistakes again soon.

The biggest problem in the US economy during the period was the high prices of oil, that had brought all administration to its knees until oil prices began to lag in 1981 (ironically enough when Regan got into power). Carter’s economic problems were more a result of circumstance rather then his own policies.

I won't respond to all the other mistakes you made

I haven’t seen any mistake being pointed out rather then your own like:

david f so which is it, a presidents economic policies take 1-2 years to take effect or they last for nearly 18 years? you are contradicting yourself in a ridiculous way. i recall the economy taking a downtrun during the first bush. so if he set economic policy in his first two years, the second two years sucked because of his bad policy. but after his 4 years are up, suddenly reagan's economic policies become the driving force again. you dont make any sense. somehow all good things that come out of the economy can be attributed to bad economic policy from 20 years ago, but then you claim a presidents policies take effect in 1-2 years. if this is true, then two years in to clinton's presidency his policies would have taken effect. the interesting part here is that when clinton began his presidency he didnt inherit a strong econonmy, but some how after 2-4 years the econonmy began to boom. you attribute this to reagan somehow. you pitch the same argument that so many reagan fanatics preach. you attribute clinton's good economy to reagan claiming that economic policies take a long take time to take effect, then you claim bush has fixed the shitty economy that he messsed up by killing consumer confidence and defecit spending in a short time period. if your long term argument is true then it must be either the first bush or clinton that is turning the economy around. the other scenario is that that the short term policies are effective. that would mean bush 1 was responsible for his shitty economy, clinton was responsible for his great economy and bush 2 is responsible for his shitty economy. make uo your mind. you cant have your cake and eat it too.

:The Dems appeal to the have-nots who want something for nothing and the Reps appeal to those who work for a living.

You would mean of course by that i.e. - the executives at Enron, that took Billions and did no physical work.

You know, the Fed does actually have another important tool for dealing with inflation. People forget about it, but it's actually the primary function of that organization.

there still is the contradiction. the economy grew at staggering rates during clintons presidency. if 2 years is the maginc number then no matter what you say clinton had to have something to do with the great growth that occurred during his presidency.

also, cutting taxes is a curious thing. you can cut taxes all you want. eventually though you will run out of taxes to cut. so less taxes are not the answer. another interesting thing is how you automatically associate cutting taxes with businesses hiring more employees. id like to see some evidence that it is the actual case. think about this, if a company is in business then you cut taxes. so these companies now have some xtra money. if they were to hire more people that would mean that they are choosing to run their company less efficiently than before. the more likely result is a pay raise for the ceo and other big shots. that money will not trickle down to the wage employees nor will it increase productivity. cutting taxes does not help a business in the way you say

crediting clinton is bull first of all the tax cuts initiated by bush began reaping financial stimulus after he was voted out in addition to that the internet began growing with the insane speed. This sort of reminds me of how Al Gore said he invented the internet and expected people to believe him.

by saying that, you are basically implying, prolly without realizing, that no president can sway teh outcome of an economy. so invention is hte main driving force in an economy?

Oh goodness, where to start...

Touche.

The Fed CANNOT control inflation by hiking interest rates. That's been tried several times and it always causes an over-correction into a recession.

Firstly no one here asserted that the fed controls inflation rates, but it’s the feds low interest rates that are making the inflationary binge worse. When Greenspan pushes back up interests rates the hope is to reign in spending, and if a recession was to happen that might even be some good news. Consider that a recession happens when the prices for goods, or the value of the economy is artificially higher then it really is. For instance the dot.com boom, it was fun while it lasted, but it couldn’t have lasted forever. The American economy is in desperate need for a correction.

The problem is ready credit, not low interest rates.

Low interest rates make consumers want to get more credit, for instance the housing bubble. It is cyclical in nature; one would necessarily exist without the other. Borrowing is the big problem here, and total debt in the US exceeds that of the total GDP. The US economy exists today because of debt, that is a legacy from the Reagan era as well.

Easy credit, and higher interest rates won't change that. If credit were tighter, the consumer wouldn't be able to pay as much and the price would come down -- the same applies for houses.

Firstly east credit is only part of the problem; people get credit cards based on their interest payment, that’s the big attraction. The whole point of the capitalist economy is for the situation you just outlined not to happen. If prices go down the US would be in deflation which is even worse then inflation, look at Japan if you want an example.

No, I said one or two years lag in the economy and you don't get to stretch it to four or six (although Watergate certainly did not help the economy).

Ok so then for both Reagan and Clinton their painful processes of their first terms allowed for the relative success of their second.

Clinton did not create 2.2 trillion in GDP growth, there was 2.2 trillion increase under Clinton - there is a difference.

No! YOU LIE! The same can be said for every president, but we usually attribute growth with the president at the time.

Why are you comparing 9 years of Reagan with 10 years of Clinton - doesn't seem quite fair especially since Clinton was not president any of '92?

Ok fine Mr.Picky:

GDP growth:
Clinton (1993-01): $2.1 trillion

He still beats Reagan by a handsome amount.

Clinton started with a growing economy and killed it. Reagan started with a flagging economy and healed it

So you consider the 1992 economy was a good one? Considering that Bush sr. lost to Clinton on the economy?

1990-1994: A recession darkens the economic mood, accenting growing inequalities. The deficit hits a record 5 percent of GDP in 1992. Voters punish President Bush for breaking his "no new taxes" promise. Fiscal conservatives advocate sharp spending cuts. Clinton embraces this program despite a divide among Democrats. Using budget cuts and limited tax increases, he makes deficit reduction his central priority.

After Reagan the Republican Party became significantly more liberal in her spending, much more then a Democrat. Under Bush sr. 2.5 million jobs were created, but most of them government jobs (very socialist), even Carter was able to create 10 million under his reign. This president has lost 1.5 million.

Anyway, the trend is fairly steady regardless of the fiscal policy. BTW, the current growth rate is the highest since Reagan - the Bush 43 tax cuts of '01 are working.

It can’t be the tax cuts because if it were then the growth shouldn’t be dependant on borrowing. If this was an economy whose growth was dependant on tax cuts then raising the interest rates shouldn’t matter all that much. Really much of the money that families are getting off in taxes will go to pay for the increased payments on their mortgages and other expenses.

Oil prices from Arab countries were really not a significant problem. The problem was consumer confidence.

I don’t think so because the recession was worldwide, it wasn't isolated to the United States. Firstly oil prices reached their peak in 1980, they were high. In 2003 money the prices would be approaching $90 a barrel! (source the economist). So I don’t agree with that assessment at all.

The problem was that people got scared and wanted to fill up. The average car maintained between half and a quarter tank of gas at any given time. Even though there was plenty of oil to keep all the cars running, there was not enough oil/gas to fill every tank in America.
Carter addressed the problem of high fuel consumption by passing legislation that demanded better fuel efficiency in cars. That was repealed by the good ole Reaganistas, it is said that if Carter’s legislation survived Reagan the US would be free of the strangle of ME oil. OH WELL!!!

Anytime demand goes up, so do prices unless something happens to increase supply with the demand (and it didn't).

Btwn the years of 1978-1980 demand actually went down:

Oil consumption (mbd)

1978- 18,847
1979- 18,513
1980- 17,056

So what evidence do you have to support your thesis on this situation? You should know that prices also dictate demand. If prices are too high demand drops off, and that’s why OPEC wants to avoid the 1970’s all over again.

Suffice it to say, after adjusting for economic lag, the Dems make the economy go down, while the Reps make the economy go up.

I have yet to see any empirical evidence to suggest as such.

Clinton did not do anything to improve the economy. He only takes credit for what Reagan and senior Bush did for improving the economy. After taking in the healthy economy and make it bad, the new Bush now has to rescue the bad economy that Clinton caused.

Does anyone remember the 2000 presidential election during the disputes over Florida? Whenever the situation appeared advantageous to Bush, the stock market went up, but went down whenever Al Gore gained advantage. These reactions should clearly imply that the republican party is good for the economy while the democrat party is the opposite.

GuessWho

Mind enlightening us with some empirical evidence to actually support your stance? Remember imagination doesn't count...

]TORONTO – High quality jobs in the U.S. have been replaced in the past three years by lower-paying, less stable employment, according to a report released on Monday by CIBC World Markets.
The report said since the economic expansion got underway in the U.S. in late 2001, the number of jobs in high-paying industries fell by more than 2 per cent while the number of jobs in low-paying industries rose by 1.2 per cent.
During the same time, the number of part-timers rose by more than 5 per cent and the number of self-employed Americans was also up by nearly 5 per cent, while regular full-time employment grew by just 1.7 per cent.
"Given that swap of good for bad jobs and the current employment distribution, it will take 20 per cent more jobs than in the last extension to generate the same salary gain," said CIBC World Markets' senior economist Benjamin Tal, the report's author.
The institution said its U.S. Employment Quality Index, established by examining the key factors of job stability, relative compensation and part-time vs. full-time employment, has fallen 8 points since 2001.
http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2004/06/21/mcjobs_040621.html

This is the economic recovery? Is this the growth that Bush speaks of? I mean if you think that being a Wal-Mart employee is an indication of a growing a vibrant economy, then hey all the power to you. But the movement of jobs ever lower, and with wages not growing the US is in trouble. Consider that inflation is a problem now, and with more people working for less there can only be one logical conclusion…Kerry’s move may be a necessity not only a political ploy. America’s working poor is growing and they need to eat.

Wow~ a whole $7!! Great! Prices are now going to increase yet again which means once again that minimum wage will be at a 'minimum'. What a joke.

Well don't you think that would be better then keeping the $5? Would you reject it? I wouldn't think so. $7 is too little, but the US is seriously losing her comparative advantage to Asia so really its a game.

"Well don't you think that would be better then keeping the $5? Would you reject it? I wouldn't think so.

Unde, all the $7 is going to do is increase the price of labor for companies. Which means that to absorb those costs they are going to have to increase prices. Which makes those companies less competative when compared to foriegn countries that offer cheaper labor (which is any third world country). People earining minimum wage will always be poor because prices have historically risin in response to minimum wage increases. A $.75 increase might not seem like much but in industries with a razor thin profit margin (restaurants for example) an increase like that will kill them unless they raise prices. So your $7 will soon buy you the same amount of goods that your $6.25 once did. Inflation at its finest.

"but the US is seriously losing her comparative advantage to Asia so really its a game."
And how does INCREASING labor costs help this???

Unde, all the $7 is going to do is increase the price of labor for companies. Which means that to absorb those costs they are going to have to increase prices. Which makes those companies less competative when compared to foriegn countries that offer cheaper labor (which is any third world country).

Re-read what I wrote in my last post, I said the exact same thing. But minimum wage jobs are necessary and they seem to becoming more and more popular with American business. Real wages for all Americans have fallen greatly since 1975, so really most Americans are poorer today then they were in 1975. This increase is marginal, and it mean little once inflation hits.

And how does INCREASING labor costs help this???

It doesn’t, and I made no bones about it. But the US has already lost her comparative advantage, unless Americans are wiling to be paid .80/hr the US will lose out anyways. The US is losing to Asian competitors and this is a major tenant in my reasoning why the world’s economic base is shifting to China. The US like the UK before is losing its technological, and price advantage.

Within a country, companies can compete on a more-or-less level playing field (things like wages or taxes) but when competing with foreign interests, there is no such thing as a level playing field.

The reason why is because govts get involved in the natural flow of capitalism. Free Trade has increased the wealth of the world by leaps and bounds, look at the US under NAFTA, the EU, etc. countries in these groups are reaping the benefits of what is commonly known as comparative advantage. If you were to read Ricardo, or learn the theorem of Comparative advantage you would understand why it is better then a tariff system.

If other countries want free trade with the US, then they need to adopt similar rules/wages/taxes (or maybe the US needs to match other countries - either way is acceptable).

If that happens then there is no need for Free Trade, which would involve a one world govt, (which under free trade should be inevitable). Democrats are pushing this legislation that all nations should conform to basically American standards, which is a form of protectionism and anti-consumerism. I agree wit the GOP on trade believe it or not.

Tarrifs only work if they are applied across-the-board. Free trade gives foreign interests a significant advantage over domestic companies, which is not lost on domestic CEOs. Free trade is why so many jobs are moving overseas. Free trade is tauntamount to foreign aid!

Firstly tariffs historically are counter productive, the best example was the 50% tariff levied on goods during the great depression, which only made that depression much worse. FDR had to bring down those tariffs; tariffs simply don’t work because they depress the domestic market because consumers lose purchasing power. An example was the Bush steel tariff, the steel tariff made the cost of steel go up in the United States, and it sure did help the comparatively disadvantaged American steel industry, tariffs especially protectionist ones delay the inevitable.

Tell me... If I'm so wrong and Clinton was so great, then why did the recession start during Clinton and why have we come out of it during Bush 43?

Well at least you know you’re wrong, the recession did begin under Clinton I personally never asserted otherwise. But understand one thing; the critical difference is that under Clinton the US was in extremely good shape. Not only had the US reached budget surplus, it had increased its spending on things that really mattered, education, healthcare, etc. The Bush administration has ensured your children have the biggest tax hikes in history to pay for the temporary spending binge you and your fellow Americans are experiencing now. Bush unlike Clinton has put the long term health of the US economy at extraordinary risk. That’s why Clinton is significantly better then Bush.

See, I'm not wrong. Clinton led the US into a recession and Bush 43 has led it out.

Really the US economy is not out as of yet so don’t start partying yet. You still have over 1 million people who don’t have a job, and the jobs being created now are crap. Secondly the US economy is basically put, overheating through borrowing. This recovery imo is going to be a short one, with a painful end.

The country was very good when Clinton took over and getting bad when he left.

Are you on XTC? Because the economy was pure crap when Clinton took over, Reaganomics had run their course. If the economy was sooo good when Clinton took over why wasn’t it growing? Why was there large unemployment, a huge fiscal deficit etc? Clinton turned the economy around, it take you centuries to understand simple economics and history but it will hit you.

Bush 43 started with a bad US economy and his first term will end with it getting good again.

Bush 43 has done nothing for this economy, his tax cuts have clearly failed, consumer confidence is very low, debt is accumulating faster then one can believe, the US trade deficit has exploded under Bush 43, and the US has literally mortgaged its future to Asia, on top of all that the US is ensured with trillions of tax hikes in the future. This President has ruined the US’ structural economic stability.

Kerry would lead the US right back into recession again.

Firstly how? Secondly is a recession really all that bad? According to the new OECD report a recession in the US seems to be necessary to stop this completely fake economy. So I dare you to vote for Bush, Socialists would luv ya for it.

I'll take a recession over a bloody Crusade-and-crash without hesitation.

The economy was growing when Clinton took office and his policies took the US into recession.

Growing? Is a very subjective term when we are talking about 1992. Obviously to the American people the economy was in the shits, the US economy was sinking in budget deficits, the US economy was barely moving in 1992. So although Clinton might have taken harsh steps (like Reagan did in the early 80’s) they both had extremely good second terms.

Bush 43 changed the policies and the economy has turned around.

Bush’s policies have done very little if anything to prop up the economy. All evidence shows that it was the Federal Reserve which has propped the US economy. Greenspan isn’t exactly happy with Bush’s free spending ways. You don’t cut taxes and raise spending, if you think that’s prudent economic policy then I suggest you revise your own budget.

Bush 43 used the playbook of another great president, Reagan, who had similar problems bequethed to him by another liberal president.

Who inherited their problems from weak Republican presidents before them. Nixon/Ford, and pussy assed Bush.

Your brand of public policy, since you seem to have DECIDED to lean far left and agree with the likes of Clinton and Carter, leads to recession.

Actually I am fiscally conservative, economically I am not a liberal trust me. If spending like mad, and destroying the budget is now conservative then I’m liberal. But really Bush has been the poster boy of socialists everywhere.


Clinton, as I recall, raised taxes twice and both times the economy responded by dipping toward recession.

Oh course there will be lower spending, that’s the point. Raising taxes is to mitigate the growth of frivolous spending, and to curb inflation. Also in Clinton’s case the raising of taxes was a absolute necessity, also remember that the congress was controlled by Republicans, so really if you are angry at Clinton for being the best republican president in American history, then I don’t know what to say.

Note also that by the time Clinton took office in 1993, the Bush 41 recession was over and the economy was growing. Note also that the indicators were ALREADY GOING DOWN before Bush 43 took office in 2001 and now after a tax cut the indicators are way back up. You just can't argue with cold hard facts.

LOL! What facts? The US economy in the second term of Clinton boomed, and in the first term he had to reorient that economy from the shitty economic policy of Bush sr. Of course the US economy was cooling down, as it should have. The US economy was too hot, and the recession would have been much more tame should the US have not cut taxes as much as she did. Taxes did not help the US economy, low interest rates have. Trickle down economics doesn’t work. Actually the US economy was making many jobs during the “recession” of Bush, instead they were being made in China instead. You have no proven anything except for your dependence of a graph to try to prove a point.

This election is going to be a choice between two socialists. Bush is just still in the closet about it.

I really, really lament the old days, when a Republican candidate stood for true Republican values. I'm voting for Badnarik.

I would have to disagree with the semantics of that sentence, the Dems appeal to the “other half” of American society. Not the NASCAR, WASP, Rambo wannabe’s, Jerry Springer guests. Dems appeal to those who want to live a little better in the US, and expect the gov’t to give them something in return for their taxes.
Wow, you're an ignorant retard. Be quiet.

Wow, you're an ignorant retard. Be quiet.

Let me tell you, you've proved it. :rolleyes:

David

You're always whining about proof and emperical evidence, yet when confronted with raw hard numbers from the very best source (the US Federal Reserve) you try to talk your way out of truth. I'm very interested in an exchange of ideas, but I'm not interested in discussing with a brick wall. When you decide to have an honest discussion about adult topics, let me know.

David, you didn't prove any context for the facts. You basically said, here look at these graphs. They sure are pretty aren’t they? Secondly your ad hom against me shows me that you have reached the brick of wall of the “cognitive surrender”, so come play again sometime shall you?

It seems people on this board have forgotten that other countries put tarrifs on OUR goods when we put tarrifs on theirs.

That’s why I support Free Trade…so that idiocy of protectionism can be nothing more then a memory.

David F., you are chock full of shit. America has possibly the most liberal history of any nation.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the wealthy corporate heads in the US were ruthless men, richer than any king or monarch of Europe, and probably as powerful.

I usually take it for granted that people know the history of this century, but republicans have such a knack for ignoring everything. I feel like I'm explaining American history to... an American. I'll assume David, that you know how bad off the American worker was 100 years ago. Actually, the worker everywhere was really bad off. That's why Communism was appealing.

What you call "socialist," I call basic human decency. Few people have the luck to work their way from the bottom to the top. Social initiatives level the playing field, and in a service based economy, that's a good thing. A single mother needs that extra 3,800 more than Wal-Mart execs. Just because you've figured out a way to gyp, gouge, extort, swindle, and malpractce your trade at the cost to others, does not mean you are more deserving of money. I think your God, and his Son, would probably agree with me here. Rich men have a tough time getting to where the angels fly, I hear. More likely you'll end up in a lake of fire and fry.

Sorry about the harsh words and nonsense, David. I was a little... inebriated. However, there are a great deal of people in America who are honest, decent and hardworking, but fall on hard times.

With the occupation of Iraq, the people on the lowest rungs of society are out there dying, or being maimed. It's their family's who are having to struggle to survive already– that's why they enlisted– and now they're dead. They're sacrificing the most. Admittedly, this is not the reason all women are single and have kids, it's a small one, but it's still valid.

When someone becomes unemployed in America, they have the chance to be trained for another job, for free. The government does this. What's wrong with that? The vast majority of your federal taxes goes to wars. New tanks, new planes, not people. The military spends $100 dollars on a toilet seat– why not argue against the bloated defense budget? That seems much more reasonable than arguing against social reform.

Who's to agree on what a level playing field between countries is? Free trade advocates would tell you that protectionist trade policies and military build up culminated in two world wars. I'm undecided on the issue, but I'd like to hear why you think there should be a level playing field (that sounds like global communism).

The liberals would like to think that means the owners give up some but that rarely happens. Most often, the customers get higher prices and the workers get lower wages.
However, with Kerry's proposed raise of the minimum wage, the companies cannot pay the workers less, and then will have to go overseas to a cheaper market.... Well, that's even worse. Perhaps companies could be given tax breaks for operating inside the country; that way, they can pass the saving on along to the worker. Isn't that what happens anyway?

That's really interesting about the military. But I know government workers, and they seem to get off on not working, but getting paid. I don't think the military's an exception. There have been investigations into millions of dollars of malappropriated funds in the big corps. I don't know of any convictions, but I recall that Halliburton was gyping the military in Iraq.

Wow, you're an ignorant retard. Be quiet.

Let me tell you, you've proved it. :rolleyes:

For somebody who is normally so quick to cry fallacy, I'd like to introduce you to a friend I call hasty generalization (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html).

Oh, pardon me, my mistake. I thought you were intellegent enough to read a graph. I'll try to dumb my comments down to fit your intellectual level.

Sorry but I’ve been doing that for a while with you, so really we are on a level plain.

You see, you read the bottom axis (the line which goes across the bottom) until you find the year. Then you go straight up (not at an angle now) until you find the curve on the graph. Then you move horizontally to the left (is horizontally too big a word?) until you find the vertical axis (the line which goes up and down) and then you read the value (the number) where you cross the line - and don't get worried if the value is between two numbers since you can just estimate how far between the two values you are.

I do graphs everyday, I know how they work, and I know what they tell me. Your graphs aren’t telling much, the economy was nominally doing better, but the fundamentals of the American economy were not good; a bunch of graphs is telling half the story. The problem I had with your analysis was the lack of one. I mean what the hell were telling in those graphs, that’s why I thought you liked swavy lines, with different colours trying to present something. Here’s something interesting from the CIA from 1991, and 1992:

In 1990, however, growth slowed to 1% because of a combination of factors, such as the worldwide increase in interest rates, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August, the subsequent spurt in oil prices, and a general decline in business and consumer confidence. Ongoing problems for the 1990s include inadequate investment in education and other economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical costs, and sizable budget and trade deficits.

And in 1992 annual growth was 1% as well, well thanks for proving nothing there David. Here to make it more interesting for you:

1990-1994: A recession darkens the economic mood, accenting growing inequalities. The deficit hits a record 5 percent of GDP in 1992. Voters punish President Bush for breaking his "no new taxes" promise. Fiscal conservatives advocate sharp spending cuts. Clinton embraces this program despite a divide among Democrats. Using budget cuts and limited tax increases, he makes deficit reduction his central priority.
1995-1998: The Clinton deficit-reduction program is a success. Spending cuts and higher tax receipts from a booming economy combine to wipe out the deficit by 1998, outstripping the most optimistic projections. A debate begins on how to employ the new surplus. Clinton supports husbanding the surplus to shore up Social Security. Republicans argue for a new round of tax cuts
Clinton did more then he even thought he would, what a baddd president. The graphs are laughable because they don’t show what would have happened if there was another Bush presidency, thank god for that. So "Dumb" David get a brain…;)

With graphs you can see at a glance what the numbers are doing and how they are changing rather than having to read lots of big numbers (I suppose you can read number tables?).

The graphs show many things, they aren’t indications of a booming economy in 1992, the country was in recession until 1994 basically, when Clinton got the country out of the horrid fiscal policy of the Reagonistas where the US finds herself today. Learn economic history before you barf your pseudo-intellectually all over me please.

Stokes Pennwalt

It’s not a hasty generalization because it is a reasonable assumption. If we are to use your logic most democrats aren’t progressive socially, are I hasty or what! Obviously Democrats are more inclined to be taxed and expect something in return for those taxes, like adequate education for their children, their children actually being literate, universal healthcare, etc. Those are the basic tenants of the modern Democratic party. So try again, it’s a very reasonable assumption. Thanks for playing.

It’s not a hasty generalization...
Right. And I don't necessarily disagree with the economic/social leanings of the Democrats you are pigeonholing.

Your problem is, you basically made the inference that Republicans are NASCAR/pro wrestling loving rednecks who are too stupid to fuck their sheep in the right orifice after a long night of huffing exhaust gases from their farm tractors.

Let me try this: all Democrats are limp wristed latte wielding artsy emo fags who want the government to pick up the hospital ER bill for the treatment of their yawning, distended anuses because they spent the weekend having sweaty man sex atop a pile of burning American flags.

Surely you see how silly you sound now, yes? I find it quite amusing that a teenager from Canada has such an intimate connection with the pulse of the American Republican party.

Your problem is, you basically made the inference that Republicans are NASCAR/pro wrestling loving rednecks who are too stupid to fuck their sheep in the right orifice after a long night of huffing exhaust gases from their farm tractors.

Well I was being (obviously) hyperbolic, but one cannot deny that NASCAR dads are more inclined to vote GOP, the south which has most of the trailer parks routinely votes GOP. I frankly like classical conservatives, we share many ethics. I have nothing against the real republican party.

Let me try this: all Democrats are limp wristed latte wielding artsy emo fags who want the government to pick up the hospital ER bill for the treatment of their yawning, distended anuses because they spent the weekend having sweaty man sex atop a pile of burning American flags.

Not all, but some surely.

I find it quite amusing that a teenager from Canada has such an intimate connection with the pulse of the American Republican party.

DON’T YOU KNOW, WE CANADIANS ARE SPIES FOR THE RUSSIANS! MUHAHAHA!!! WE KNOW YOU MORE THEN YOU KNOW YOURSELVES!

Oh and Stokes I wouldn't be so quick to assume that homosexuals are exclusively Democratic:

www.lcr.org

Enjoy...

Well I was being (obviously) hyperbolic, but one cannot deny that NASCAR dads are more inclined to vote GOP, the south which has most of the trailer parks routinely votes GOP. I think it would be rather amusing to watch you try to prove this.

I frankly like classical conservatives, we share many ethics. I have nothing against the real republican party.
Cool.

Well I cannot prove the trailer park one, I can prove the NASCAR one. Watch Judy Woodruff’s “Inside Politics” 3:30 pm ET, they’ve discussed the innateness of the NASCAR dads to vote republican, like soccer moms do Democrats. There’s isn’t much to prove, it’s not a hard concept, so don’t stretch it out.