Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Sep 25, 2007.
"YEAH, WELL, whatever... at least Bush is boosting the econ... what? ... oh, nevermind"
It's been a very good run since 9/11 - good economies never last indefinitely; you know, that cyclic thing.
utter bullshyt... he's "boosted" the economy based off borrowed money from a doomed future... he's been anything BUT fiscally responsible, and many of your allies here have been the very first to admit it...
Why do I bother ? No sh!t, I am ONE of those who detests the spending. Believe me. But the solid economy hasn't doomed the future and the debt as a % of GDP isn't far off historical norms. Not fixing and, in fact, adding to the killers of SS and Medicare are his biggest faults.
yes, why DO you bother? i mean, please don't tell me it's not raining when i'm standing in the rain... you just admitted he's "adding to the killers" of SS and Medicare, that you detest his spending... the thread has provided evidence of a recession around the corner... utilities, mortgages and rents skyrocket to double what they were 10 years ago, salaries are largely stagnant, corporate outsourcing is a plague...
but of course, the economy is "solid"... wow... based on what?
Bush didn't add to the SS mess he just didn't improve it. The prescription drug debacle sucks but I would think you'd like that.
My God, prices going up ? I'm stunned. Prices doubling in 10 years is fully reasonable although most aren't right now because of our very, very low inflation.
There's no evidence of a recession. The article in question doesn't even mention the word recession. It is possible, it always is. Likely ? Certain ? No.
"The economy is expected to grow 2.0% to 2.5% this year, versus the 2004-2006 period when it averaged 3.2% growth."
-- That's a slowing economy not a recessionary one.
"Another positive for consumer spending is strong income growth. Personal income, as measured up the government, is up 5.2% so far this year."
-- Wow that sucks.
Well, the surplus wasn't borrowed money, it was OUR money. When he refunded it, that was the best hting he could do. Where he totally ****tanked in my opinion, is when he massively increased spending even a couple of years after 9/11. I could understand the need to push some cash into the economy post 9/11, but to continue it thereafter was more telling of his fiscal make up. Overall he's done fairly well with the economy, but it's his spending that will be his ruin.
Ok a couple of things here. A recession was also in place when he took over. Rents, and home prices were already skyrocketing, and those are directly related to interest rates. Mortgages aren't under the presidents control. Again, the fed has more sway there. Unemployment is 4.5 or 4.7% I think. Where he's been terrible is with his spending. He's increased government exponentially, however, his lower taxes have increased government "revenues" so it falls within the norms of % of GDP. Like I always say though, numbers can be manipulated to fit whatever arguement you're trying to make. Where he is within range of % of GDP, it's only because he's taken in more money than anyone else before him. This is what I've tried to tell people for a decade now. The only guarantee you're going to get from one admin to another, is that government will increase in size. Had GW been a genuine fiscal conservative, we'd have a sizable surplus now. The problem is that he is not fiscally conservative in any way, shape, or form.
Nothing Else Matters
Separate names with a comma.