TheMadCap Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
Alexander Hamilton Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 We're not up to half a trillion yet, but we should be by 2007.
UConn James Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 I'm surprised he didn't also ask for a tax cut of the same amount. Fiscal responsibility? What's that? Let the next President get a bad rap for having to clean up the mess.
RkFast Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 Clinton got a GOOD rep for cleaning it up, evn though it was fueled by a booming economy, thanks to the dot com deal.
Alaska Darin Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 Ooh, a President who wastes taxpayer money? There's news. Oh, and there won't be a President who cleans up the government's fiscal house until it completely collapses on itself. Bank on it. Then understand that you partisan lemmings deserve all the blame for it.
TheMadCap Posted February 3, 2006 Author Posted February 3, 2006 Ooh, a President who wastes taxpayer money? There's news. Oh, and there won't be a President who cleans up the government's fiscal house until it completely collapses on itself. Bank on it. Then understand that you partisan lemmings deserve all the blame for it. 593780[/snapback] Agreed, but my goodness, 400 BILLION with no end in sight???
Gavin in Va Beach Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Agreed, but my goodness, 400 BILLION with no end in sight??? 593787[/snapback] If you stole a couple of bucks from your daddys wallet and he found out, but instead of punishing you he leaves his wallet out on the coffee table so you don't have to be inconvienced by tiptoeing into his room and taking it off his dresser, pretty soon you'll be taking as much as possible until he said stop. And what if he never says stop? Unless Daddy finds his balls and says stop pretty soon, Mom will divorce him and he'll lose everything and find himself naked on the street with his dick in his hand...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Unless Daddy finds his balls and says stop pretty soon, Mom will divorce him and he'll lose everything and find himself naked on the street with his dick in his hand... 593865[/snapback] And that is where your analogy breaks down...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 And that is where your analogy breaks down... 593876[/snapback] Yep, didn't get it either, but still I like the early part about Clinton getting credit for balancing the budget because a booming economy that he had nothing to do with. Another lemming, the 94 budget act raised taxes on the rich attempted to cut taxes for the middle class failed because of Republican opposition. Of course it doesn't get framed that way. I know, it is a chicken or egg thing, but Clinton's fiscal policies, as well as his implementation, i.e., dragging his feet implementing a lot of pork barrel congressional projects as well as reducing Washington bureaucracy by third allowed him to save a lot of money. A 30,000 reduction at USDA alone, but now under Bush, we are right back up there. You get rid of corporate farm programs and reduce by half and you can actually do a lot towards balancing the budget Balancing the budget helped put more money into the economy and increase its velocity, creating consumer confidence and thus spending that resulted in the great expansion in the late 90s. Supply siders forget this and don't understand. Econ 101, the money multiplier effects. But I love Republicans taking credit for it. Pathetic.
Alaska Darin Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Yep, didn't get it either, but still I like the early part about Clinton getting credit for balancing the budget because a booming economy that he had nothing to do with. Another lemming, the 94 budget act raised taxes on the rich attempted to cut taxes for the middle class failed because of Republican opposition. Of course it doesn't get framed that way. I know, it is a chicken or egg thing, but Clinton's fiscal policies, as well as his implementation, i.e., dragging his feet implementing a lot of pork barrel congressional projects as well as reducing Washington bureaucracy by third allowed him to save a lot of money. A 30,000 reduction at USDA alone, but now under Bush, we are right back up there. You get rid of corporate farm programs and reduce by half and you can actually do a lot towards balancing the budget Balancing the budget helped put more money into the economy and increase its velocity, creating consumer confidence and thus spending that resulted in the great expansion in the late 90s. Supply siders forget this and don't understand. Econ 101, the money multiplier effects. But I love Republicans taking credit for it. Pathetic. 593954[/snapback] What they're doing is no different that what you're doing.
JimBob2232 Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Ask yourself this question. How has the stock market performed under george w. bush? Answer the question then click on this link for the answer. http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/chart...t=Refresh+Chart I understand stock market does not (necessarily) indicate economy growth.
Scraps Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Ask yourself this question. How has the stock market performed under george w. bush? Answer the question then click on this link for the answer. http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/chart...t=Refresh+Chart I understand stock market does not (necessarily) indicate economy growth. 594106[/snapback] The DOW, comprised of 30 stocks, isn't necessarily indicative of the market. Do you honestly believe that the President is responsible for the behavior of the stock market? Hint, you may want to look at Federal Reserve Board interest rate moves.
meazza Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 The DOW, comprised of 30 stocks, isn't necessarily indicative of the market. Do you honestly believe that the President is responsible for the behavior of the stock market? Hint, you may want to look at Federal Reserve Board interest rate moves. 594159[/snapback] Monetary policy alone does not create economic growth. Monetary theory (from keynseian economists) believe that lowering interest rates will create a crowding out effect and will effectively raise interest rates. On the other hand, a steady dose of Expansionary monetary policy, coupled with expansionary fiscal policy will cause the economy to grow, barring any external shocks.
blzrul Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Yep, didn't get it either, but still I like the early part about Clinton getting credit for balancing the budget because a booming economy that he had nothing to do with. Another lemming, the 94 budget act raised taxes on the rich attempted to cut taxes for the middle class failed because of Republican opposition. Of course it doesn't get framed that way. I know, it is a chicken or egg thing, but Clinton's fiscal policies, as well as his implementation, i.e., dragging his feet implementing a lot of pork barrel congressional projects as well as reducing Washington bureaucracy by third allowed him to save a lot of money. A 30,000 reduction at USDA alone, but now under Bush, we are right back up there. You get rid of corporate farm programs and reduce by half and you can actually do a lot towards balancing the budget Balancing the budget helped put more money into the economy and increase its velocity, creating consumer confidence and thus spending that resulted in the great expansion in the late 90s. Supply siders forget this and don't understand. Econ 101, the money multiplier effects. But I love Republicans taking credit for it. Pathetic. 593954[/snapback] Good points. It's easy to forget about fiscal responsibility when times are good. A wise person hedges against the next down cycle. It seems to me there are all sorts of stories about that whether it's the ant and the grasshopper or the parable of the 7 lean / 7 fat years. This president is pissing away what we don't have. If an individual were so irresponsible there would be scant sympathy on this board for someone so stupid as to keep spending money while voluntarily cutting back work hours. It's just pure hypocrisy that they give the current cast of clowns a pass.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Yep, didn't get it either, but still I like the early part about Clinton getting credit for balancing the budget because a booming economy that he had nothing to do with. Another lemming, the 94 budget act raised taxes on the rich attempted to cut taxes for the middle class failed because of Republican opposition. Of course it doesn't get framed that way. I know, it is a chicken or egg thing, but Clinton's fiscal policies, as well as his implementation, i.e., dragging his feet implementing a lot of pork barrel congressional projects as well as reducing Washington bureaucracy by third allowed him to save a lot of money. A 30,000 reduction at USDA alone, but now under Bush, we are right back up there. You get rid of corporate farm programs and reduce by half and you can actually do a lot towards balancing the budget Balancing the budget helped put more money into the economy and increase its velocity, creating consumer confidence and thus spending that resulted in the great expansion in the late 90s. Supply siders forget this and don't understand. Econ 101, the money multiplier effects. But I love Republicans taking credit for it. Pathetic. 593954[/snapback] Please do me a favor and never agree with me again.
JimBob2232 Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 The DOW, comprised of 30 stocks, isn't necessarily indicative of the market. Do you honestly believe that the President is responsible for the behavior of the stock market? Hint, you may want to look at Federal Reserve Board interest rate moves. 594159[/snapback] No, I do not believe one second that the president is responsible for the behavior of the stock market. But I am sick of people talking about how great the market was because of Clintons policies. People forget that the market pretty much tanked towards the tail end of clintons term, and has been stagnant during bush's term, but somehow clinton gets alot of credit here and bush gets slammed (due to his policies). I intentionally phrased my previous post to make that point. I understand the DOW is only 30 stocks...but it is a widely used indicator of stock market performance (ESPECIALLY amungst the bush is bad for the stock market crowd who dont know better) and tracks fairly closely with the S&P. The point remains the same if the S&P is used vice the DJIA.
Scraps Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 No, I do not believe one second that the president is responsible for the behavior of the stock market. But I am sick of people talking about how great the market was because of Clintons policies. People forget that the market pretty much tanked towards the tail end of clintons term, and has been stagnant during bush's term, but somehow clinton gets alot of credit here and bush gets slammed (due to his policies). I intentionally phrased my previous post to make that point. I understand the DOW is only 30 stocks...but it is a widely used indicator of stock market performance (ESPECIALLY amungst the bush is bad for the stock market crowd who dont know better) and tracks fairly closely with the S&P. The point remains the same if the S&P is used vice the DJIA. 594691[/snapback] Odd that the link you provided actually makes, rather than refutes, their point.
JimBob2232 Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Odd that the link you provided actually makes, rather than refutes, their point. No, No it didnt... The market DID NOT CRASH UNDER BUSH. It crashed under clinton. Bush has not had a booming market, but it has not been as terrible as people seem to think it is.
TheMadCap Posted February 5, 2006 Author Posted February 5, 2006 No, No it didnt... The market DID NOT CRASH UNDER BUSH. It crashed under clinton. Bush has not had a booming market, but it has not been as terrible as people seem to think it is. 594767[/snapback] Either way, the President and his economic policies (or lack thereof) have very little to do with the stock market. I would suspect the most recent downward trend would be due to Greenspan's retirement...
Scraps Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Either way, the President and his economic policies (or lack thereof) have very little to do with the stock market. I would suspect the most recent downward trend would be due to Greenspan's retirement... 594799[/snapback] What most recent downward trend are you talking about? The one that started last week?
Recommended Posts