Zipp0 1 #1 January 9, 2008 Some economists say that it has already started: http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080109/010908_recession.html This seems to be a stinging rebuke of Bush economic/tax/spending policy. Unemployment is on the rise, home ownership is on the decline and may return to levels lower than when Bush took office, credit problems plague the nation, personal saving are at an all time low, and wages are not keeping pace with inflation. How do the Bushites want to spin all this? It should be entertaining at least. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #2 January 9, 2008 Blame Clinton. Or Carter. Or Kennedy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #3 January 9, 2008 A healthy economy is not really up to the president. One man cannot control something as complex as a global economy. I don't think presidents should get credit or blame for a healthy economy. Too many factors beyond anyones control contributes to a good or bad economy.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 January 9, 2008 QuoteHow do the Bushites want to spin all this? It's already beign spun. Maybe the recession has already begun, maybe not. Maybe it's already over. Maybe not. They are saying they don't know. But based on predictors, they predict it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #5 January 9, 2008 QuoteA healthy economy is not really up to the president. One man cannot control something as complex as a global economy. I don't think presidents should get credit or blame for a healthy economy. Too many factors beyond anyones control contributes to a good or bad economy. Are you saying that all your right wing buddies who wrote on this forum about "the Clinton recession" were lying? (a forum search brings up their names).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #6 January 9, 2008 Quote A healthy economy is not really up to the president. One man cannot control something as complex as a global economy. I don't think presidents should get credit or blame for a healthy economy. Too many factors beyond anyones control contributes to a good or bad economy. So I guess colleges should shut down those economics classes and we can send Bernake packing??I disagree. Sound, responsible economic policy by the world's leading economic power sets the tone for the global economy. Taxes, trade agreements, international relations, and other such arenas under the president's umbrella all affect the economy of the USA and the world. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #7 January 9, 2008 QuoteA healthy economy is not really up to the president. One man cannot control something as complex as a global economy. I don't think presidents should get credit or blame for a healthy economy. Too many factors beyond anyones control contributes to a good or bad economy. I used to believe this ... not anymore. One man can influence something as complex as a national economy and when that national economy is the leading (or one of the leading) national economy in a global economy that one man can influence something as complex as a global economy. One man can influence a national economy through taxes, tariffs, military spending, medical spending, etc..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 January 9, 2008 QuoteA healthy economy is not really up to the president. One man cannot control something as complex as a global economy. I don't think presidents should get credit or blame for a healthy economy. Too many factors beyond anyones control contributes to a good or bad economy. I submit that the Bush Doctrine has and WILL have a huge effect on our economy for many many years to come...especially when other countires see us as a threat instead of a partner they can rely on to make good decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #9 January 9, 2008 QuoteA healthy economy is not really up to the president. One man cannot control something as complex as a global economy. I don't think presidents should get credit or blame for a healthy economy. Too many factors beyond anyones control contributes to a good or bad economy. The global economy is not expected to fall into recession; it will suffer reduced growth from the US knock on but even Canada with its eighty percent plus US export ratio is not expected to follow the US this time. We shall see. You may be right about it not being the president's job though, Ron Paul says that sort of thing is up to Congress; not everyone agrees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #10 January 9, 2008 Quote I submit that the Bush Doctrine has and WILL have a huge effect on our economy for many many years to come...especially when other countires see us as a threat instead of a partner they can rely on to make good decisions. I think it is brilliant positioning that will eventually ensure our standing in the world. Consider China - sure, they may be able to kick our ass, but they hold so much of our debt that they won't. MMMMUUUUUUUAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 January 9, 2008 Quote I think it is brilliant positioning that will eventually ensure our standing in the world. Consider China - sure, they may be able to kick our ass, but they hold so much of our debt that they won't. MMMMUUUUUUUAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Besides - they owe us for Bubba Jeff selling them missile tech, anyway.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 January 9, 2008 The Bush policies probably aren't 'responsible' for the current situation. Or at least not the policies of lower taxes, higher spending, and higher deficits. The response to 9/11, and the end of the bubble of 2000, was to drop the fed rates to 1.0%, and that easy money lead to the circumstances of this current downturn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #13 January 9, 2008 Quote How do the Bushites want to spin all this? It should be entertaining at least. Well I would congrad Bush on the 7 good years but then again he didn't have anything to do with that - but of course the recession is all his fault Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 January 9, 2008 Quote Quote How do the Bushites want to spin all this? It should be entertaining at least. Well I would congrad Bush on the 7 good years but then again he didn't have anything to do with that - but of course the recession is all his fault NOW you understand, young padawan... ALL the good in the world is due to the Democrats, and all the evil due to the Republicans... your indoctrination is almost complete.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #15 January 9, 2008 The best thing a government can do to foster a healthy economy is to follow a strict policy of laizze-faire. History does not look kindly upon fiat currency or deficit spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #16 January 10, 2008 Simple, concise and right on the federal reserve note money. Na too simple, couldn't possibly be correct. 's advocate. “The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joedirt 0 #17 January 10, 2008 Quote The response to 9/11, and the end of the bubble of 2000, was to drop the fed rates to 1.0%, and that easy money lead to the circumstances of this current downturn How low will they go this time? I want to sell my precious metals after such a good run but can't bring myself to beleive anything other than rates will be going right back down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 January 10, 2008 at current, they're unlikely to move any further due to inflation fear. Market timing on metals sounds like a good way to lose your shirt. Set an allocation percentage and sell the excess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #19 January 10, 2008 Quote Quote How do the Bushites want to spin all this? It should be entertaining at least. Well I would congrad Bush on the 7 good years but then again he didn't have anything to do with that - but of course the recession is all his fault But the righties on here claimed the Clinton legacy was responsible for the recession for the first 4 years of King George's reign, when revenues plumetted, so where are these 7 fat years (did you just make them up, Fortson?)? Taken a look at the value of the $US recently?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhays 86 #20 January 10, 2008 QuoteHow do the Bushites want to spin all this? It should be entertaining at least. No spin needed. The definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Since that has yet to happen, I think saying that we are in a recession is a bit premature. Are we heading there? Perhaps... Of course, you can make your own definition of a recession if it makes you happy.“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #21 January 10, 2008 QuoteThe Bush policies probably aren't 'responsible' for the current situation. Or at least not the policies of lower taxes, higher spending, and higher deficits. Monster deficits have no impact on economy????? You're surely joking ... Do you know what "inflation" is? Real wage decline, decline in purchase power, and all that stuff? Quote The response to 9/11, and the end of the bubble of 2000, was to drop the fed rates to 1.0%, and that easy money lead to the circumstances of this current downturn. How can the destruction of two and a half high rises collapse the hugest economy on the plant. There were very short term spike downs in the stock markets because people didn't know what was yet to come and whether all trade records could be recovered - but that was it. The overall levels and trends resumed a few weeks later. To make 9/11 the main cause for recessions is just silly. The 2000 bubble burst certainly was serious but there are a lot of other very good industries in this country and even many newer .com enterprises have taken off. So this should have recovered and turned around in under 2 years not over 7 years. Tax breaks are a gamble that can be very profitable if the timing is right and disastrous of the timing is wrong. In order for tax breaks to work you need to be sure you have a climate where people like to run and invest their extra money so yo can profit from the increased returns even at lower taxes. If those with tax breaks decide to remain bears you lose big time. So the onset of a war is just about the worst time you can pick for tax breaks. The market, that could have turned in late 2002 or 2003, remained depressed for another couple of years - during all of which time government coffers were hemorrhaging. If, on top of that, tax breaks are not matched at least in part by reduced spending, but instead by huge war spending and un-vetoed pork bills, it's not hard to see how things get badly out of hand. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #22 January 10, 2008 Quote The best thing a government can do to foster a healthy economy is to follow a strict policy of laizze-faire. How true. I mean, look at how well that worked for us in the late 20's. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #23 January 10, 2008 Surely you are not suggesting that the US government followed a policy of free market capitalism in the 1920s? the year 1913 saw the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment to the US constitution (two tenets of communism; see Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto). The 1930s saw an increase in government interventions in the market on the mistaken belief that the market could be corrected with more government intervention, instead of realizing that government intervention in the market was the cause of the problem to begin with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 January 10, 2008 Quote Quote The best thing a government can do to foster a healthy economy is to follow a strict policy of laizze-faire. How true. I mean, look at how well that worked for us in the late 20's. If the government hadn't stepped in and tried to correct/control the economy, we probably would have come out of it sooner.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #25 January 10, 2008 QuoteIf the government hadn't stepped in and tried to correct/control the economy, we probably would have come out of it sooner. And the dollar would not have become worthless (against the Euro). -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
