Politics: J'accuse! - Page 29

sgtclub · 04-02-2004, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I just hope Club isn't claiming that the job growth is a result of Bush. It's fortunate for Bush, but it's ignorant to assume that a president can effect job growth in the short run. Clinton didn't create the boom in the '90s and Bush didn't kill it in the '00s. This shit happens regardless of who is in the WH.

It's not the result of Bush. It is the result of the American capitalist/worker. The only thing a president can do is create an economic environment favorable for growth, which he did with tax cuts.

sgtclub · 04-02-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So are you predicting that this will be sustained? Will there be a net gain or loss of jobs in Bush's term?

Which term?

Gattigap · 04-02-2004, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's not the result of Bush. It is the result of the American capitalist/worker. The only thing a president can do is create an economic environment favorable for growth, which he did with tax cuts.

[aside]

Now there's bumper sticker material!

"Creating an Economic Environment Favorable For Growth:
Bush/Cheney '04"

[/aside]

Gattigap · 04-02-2004, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Which term?

How many do you think Bush will need?

sgtclub · 04-02-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
How many do you think Bush will need?

good one

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 04-02-2004, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's not the result of Bush. It is the result of the American capitalist/worker. The only thing a president can do is create an economic environment favorable for growth, which he did with tax cuts.

I'll buy that in the long-run. Not the short-run though.

Sidd Finch · 04-02-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I'll buy that in the long-run. Not the short-run though.

The danger, of course, is that the resultant deficits* will outweigh the effects of tax cuts. Or render them unsustainable.

*I know, club, deficits have nothing to do with revenues, only expenditures, and my suggestion that what a person earns is relevant to that person's balance sheet is evidence of me, and in fact all liberals, being out-of-touch with America. Humor me.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-02-2004, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's not the result of Bush. It is the result of the American capitalist/worker. The only thing a president can do is create an economic environment favorable for growth, which he did with tax cuts.

I thought you were saying before that the tax cuts hadn't kicked in yet. Please try to keep your story straight. It's hard enough trying to visualize this alternative reality you live in, but it's even harder when it keeps changing.

dtb · 04-02-2004, 02:17 PM

So, has anyone listened to the Al Franken radio show? I'm listening to it now, and it is unabashedly LIBERAL -- but why the hell shouldn't it be?

There have been a couple genuine LOL moments -- the ones I recall didn't have anything to do with politics. I've always liked Al Franken -- from SNL days, even. I even saw the Stuart Smalley movie (but on HBO or something -- not in the theater.)

I do love how conservatives who get so apoplectic about him are getting a taste of their own medicine. I don't really have the stomach to get involved in political debates, I'm only a spectator, but it is entertaining.

sgtclub · 04-02-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I thought you were saying before that the tax cuts hadn't kicked in yet. Please try to keep your story straight. It's hard enough trying to visualize this alternative reality you live in, but it's even harder when it keeps changing.

They haven't, but capital has a very reasonable expectation that they will and makes decisions based on that.

sgtclub · 04-02-2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The danger, of course, is that the resultant deficits* will outweigh the effects of tax cuts. Or render them unsustainable.

*I know, club, deficits have nothing to do with revenues, only expenditures, and my suggestion that what a person earns is relevant to that person's balance sheet is evidence of me, and in fact all liberals, being out-of-touch with America. Humor me.

Sidd, I hate deficits as much as you do (but for different reasons, I think). But as a percentage of GDP, I am not currently worried. What does worry me is the SS and Medicare liabilities, especially with the new presciption benefit. I agree with Greenspan that the age needs to be raised on SS, and I agree with Bush that we need to start pushing HSAs.

Sidd Finch · 04-02-2004, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sidd, I hate deficits as much as you do (but for different reasons, I think). But as a percentage of GDP, I am not currently worried. What does worry me is the SS and Medicare liabilities, especially with the new presciption benefit. I agree with Greenspan that the age needs to be raised on SS, and I agree with Bush that we need to start pushing HSAs.

I'm not sure what you think my reasons for hating deficits are, but I'll leave that alone.

As a percentage of GDP, a percentage of government receipts, and as a raw dollar number, the current deficits and the currently projected deficits do worry me. Especially given that the trend seems to be for them to continue spiraling.

I do agree that the Medicare/SS liabilities are even more worrisome, especially since we've lost about 8-10 years of ground in the past 4 years.

sgtclub · 04-02-2004, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As a percentage of GDP, a percentage of government receipts, and as a raw dollar number, the current deficits and the currently projected deficits do worry me. Especially given that the trend seems to be for them to continue spiraling.

As a percentage of GDP it is at about historical levels.

As a percentage of government receipts, I believe it is at about historical levels, but am not 100% sure.

I'm not sure how the raw dollar number is significant.

Secret_Agent_Man · 04-02-2004, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
As a percentage of GDP it is at about historical levels.

As a percentage of government receipts, I believe it is at about historical levels, but am not 100% sure.

Of course, when you use "historical" you mean since about 1980?

S_A_M

sgtclub · 04-02-2004, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Of course, when you use "historical" you mean since about 1980?

S_A_M

I've posted the link before, but if I recall correctly, it goes back a lot further than that. I want to say WWII, but it may go back even further.