"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote

So you're taking your figures from the very people who produced
the single largest deficits in the history of the planet.

Not as a percentage of GDP.

I love the way you idiots cling to that like a drowning man to a
life preserver...

Most things are more expensive now than "in the history of the
planet" because of inflation.

And when expenses go up but income does not, you have a deficit.

You're exposing the flaw in the Bush "plan." The logical conclusion
to his record-setting deficits is even larger deficits.

You remember inflation? That crippling phenomenon during the
Carter Administration?

....brought on by the second oil crisis in five years. The world
was consuming 2 million barrels of oil a day more than it was
producing.

Yup. Which, again, exposes a flaw in Bush. I mean, if you consider
destabalizing the middle east -- and the oil -- a reason for concern.

Not suprised you don't remember.

One of us knows the story, and it ain't you.

Reagan and Bush wiped inflation away.

Reagan stepped into the situation post-crisis.

Now the second Bush has established record low interest rates
as well.

They're artificially low. If anything, they're hurting our economy.
Bush has devalued the dollar, yet interest rates have not risen in
the least. A Euro, for example, was worth about a dollar when Bush
took the Whitehouse (a little less, actually). Today a Euro is worth
about $1.27 WITHOUT any increase in interest rates. You actually
lost money if you had savings in an American bank.

No, the loss isn't as obvious to Americans who don't have the
confirmation of a currency exchange....

Unless you buy gasoline. Then you can see the devaluation of the
dollar first hand.

Home ownership is the higest in the history of the planet as well.

As are personal bankruptcies, 90% of which are filed by the "Middle
Class."

Children in two parent, two income homes this year are more likely
to see their parents file for bankruptcy than divorce.

One in every three familes with earnings above $35K have debt
collectors calling them.

Familes with children are three times more likely to go bankrupt than
childless people.

Suggested reading: "The Two Income Trap."

I disagree with many of the conclusions myself, but the facts are
well researched and undeniable.

The same people who brought us from a projected $5 trillion
surplus to a $5 trillion deficit are your source for Kerry's
budget.

LOL! You dropped "projected" from that $5 trillion deficit!

Bush's deficits have ALREADY exceeded the Bush estimates for
John Kerry.

You must be one of those people who desperately want the
economy to be bad

No. I don't support Bush.

Mark Fox wrote:

"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<gqedndTNut_d3eXdRVn_iw@comcast.com>...

"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote

Could you offer us a break down of your estimates, and
an explaination as to how you made these determinations?

Nope. The Bush campaign's estimates are good enough for me.

So you're taking your figures from the very people who produced
the single largest deficits in the history of the planet.

Not as a percentage of GDP.

Uhmmm, yes. What Bush and crew did as far as GDP claims,
was to cherry pick 1983 (6.0%) as the height the GDP/deficits,
and claim that since Bush's deficits had not reached 6.2%, Bush's deficits
were not as bad as Reagan's.
But that is cherry picking.

If you take Bush's three years, and the White House projections
of $513 billion deficits for 2004, Bush's aggregate Deficit/GDP
ratio is not quite as bad than Reagan's first 4 years but it most certainly
is not good. 2.7% is not a good thing, and it does not get better by
pretending its not bad because Reagan in 1983 ran 6.0%

Only by cherry picking one year out of 8 (or 4 if one uses only Reagan's
first 4 years) can Bush supporters make that claim, which is senseless
in comparing Bush II to Carter, Reagan, Bush I or anybody else for that
matter.

And 2.7% is not good compared to Clinton, 1.58%
You can see why the Bushites use the 1983 Reagan figure and ignore
Clinton.
Its like the old Huff "How to Lie with Statistics" book.
Cherry pick figures and ignore bad ones to make misleading
comparisons.


Reagan's average for 8 years was 4.3% Bush is lower, 2.7% estimated,
but, Bush is still peddling his 'plan' which will increase deficits
and % of GDP as he more than doubles our $7 trillion national debt over ten
years and interest alone on the national debt equals all discretionary
spending, domestic and military. (Www.cbo.gov).
Here is what will hurt us badly.
Bush is re-elected and allowed to put his stupid plan in place, will
increase debt as % of GDP much higher than his current estimated 2.7%
and will put us right back in Reagan territory.

What Bush's supporters do is point to todays figures, using
cherry picked figures of Reagan's years and ignore dire warnings of what
Bush's plans do to us a decade out.

Its like the old joke about the guy that falls off the Empire State
building, 100 stories down he is saying "So far so good".

Bush's deficits so far have resulting in draining SS of all its surpluses
for one bad thing.

Most things are more expensive now than "in the history of the planet"
because of inflation. You remember inflation? That crippling
phenomenon during the Carter Administration?

No, the Nixon/Ford era. Carter inherited it and beat it.
By allowing Fed chairman Paul Volker to raise rates until the wage/price
spiral was snuffed out. After that, inflation dropped, from
11%cto less than 6% and dropped further as the fed adopted
a toiugh but steady monetary policy of using interest rates to control
inflation.

Unfortunately, as is usual in American politics, Carter gets no credit, the
right only remebers the pain, but not the pain under Ford and Nixon.
And do not remeber why inflation was whipped, Reagan gets undue credit for
his predecessor's policy.



Not suprised you don't

remember. Reagan and Bush wiped inflation away.

No, Volker and Carter did.
You know nothing.
You are simply dead wrong.



Now the second Bush

has established record low interest rates as well. Home ownership is
the higest in the history of the planet as well.

Only because Fed chairman Greenspan has kept
interest rates low. because if raised, like he did repeatedly under
Clinton, he knows this weak and dangerously unsteady economy would
crater.

Cheap interest rates fueled the housing boom, which started when people
abandoned a corrupt and tanked stock market.
If Greenspan raised rates, he'd have killed than and
we would have had a double dip recession.

Bush gets no credit here because this was essentially out of his
hands and was the action of Greenspan.

Amazing.

The same people who brought us from a projected $5 trillion
surplus to a $5 trillion deficit are your source for Kerry's
budget.

LOL! You dropped "projected" from that $5 trillion deficit! You must
be one of those people who desperately want the economy to be bad and
for average people to suffer when it furthers your political agenda.

Amazing.

Not really. People like you, although a bit scary, are rather
predictable.

That's a bit like asking blind people to describe colors for you.

Not at all if you take ten minutes to look up what social programs
cost in taxes. John Kerry's promised new spending, new social
programs, new give-aways to his political cronies and John Kerry's
bigger government could easily cost 900 billion.

Its not about colors. Its about common sense.

--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle

Cheerful Charlie