| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2008 06:08:21 PM |
| Object: |
Republican administration tanked the U.S. economy.. |
From The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1/11/08:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/347046_erbe13.html?source=rss
Bush tanked the U.S. economy
By BONNIE ERBE
GUEST COLUMNIST
Recession, like menopause, is a retrospective diagnosis.
You don't know you're in one until you've been in it for at least two
quarters (referring to a recession) or a year (for menopause).
The question for me is not:
Are we hitting a recession in 2008?
It is:
What has made the economy so buoyant that we didn't submerge into a
recession several years ago?
Wall Street giant and billion-dollar bank Merrill Lynch announced last
week that the United States had entered a recession for the first time
in 16 years.
It was a controversial call denied by a chorus of economists who do
not think we're there yet.
But the announcement comes from the bank's chief American economist,
David Rosenberg -- widely respected on Wall Street.
The largest factor driving this country's economy into recession has
been the Bush administration's profligate spending.
Please read the following quote from the conservative/libertarian
think tank Cato Institute's Web site:
"George Bush is mired in a fiscal policy crisis worse than anyone
could have envisioned when he entered the Oval Office ... This crisis
is the resurgence of record federal deficits ... The deterioration of
America's fiscal health cannot be blamed on ... pro-spending
coalitions in the Democrat-controlled Congress -- although certainly
some of the blame lies there. It is almost exclusively the creation of
the Bush administration itself."
Sound familiar?
The article, which I edited heavily (taking out references that would
have dated it immediately, such as the use of the term "Reaganomics"),
is about George H.W. Bush, not George W. But it might as well have
been about the son.
Forget about the $127 billion surplus that President Clinton left the
nation after he moved out of the White House or the fact that Clinton
paid down hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt.
President George W. Bush has produced nothing but deficits since he's
been in office. Last year's, at $163 billion, was the lowest in five
years.
But it probably would not have been if his trillion-dollar war in Iraq
hadn't been paid for "off budget."
That little budgetary trick by the administration means that cost
isn't tallied in the deficit and debt figures.
Then, of course, there's Bush's multitrillion-dollar tax cut.
Here's a lesson Bush never learned and one that probably could have
kept this country out of recession:
You can't fight an expensive war AND cut taxes simultaneously without
sending the U.S. economy into the tank.
That is just what Bush has done.
There are other contributing factors, of course.
The housing bust has hurt this consumer-driven economy mightily.
Americans felt richer and borrowed heavily against home equity at the
height of the boom.
These factors kept corporate profits and the economy growing.
But the bust that has now followed was highly predictable.
Real estate always runs in cycles.
The last real-estate boom lasted an incredibly long five years.
The president should not have been piling up irresponsible debt,
knowing the crash would come at some point.
Then there is oil.
Prices have been high since Hurricane Katrina, more than two years
ago.
When you consider that early in Bush's first term oil was selling for
about $25 per barrel, and we're now paying about four times that much,
it's incredible that fact alone didn't drive us into recession
territory much sooner.
What has kept our economy growing these past few years?
My theory is: immigration.
When millions of people flood into this country with few possessions,
buy homes and fill them with consumer goods, of course our consumer
economy is pumped.
But that artificial pump-up won't last forever.
Unfortunately, the overdevelopment they prompt and the environmental
degradation they create will.
What's the solution?
It won't be resolved with this guy in the White House.
Cut defense spending.
Use a pay-go system for all future domestic spending programs and tax
cuts.
Get the deficit down and bring the surplus back.
And while we're at it, pay down the national debt.
___________________________________________________
And you wanna put Republicans back in office to do what?
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican administration tanked the U.S. economy.. |
13 Jan 2008 06:15:28 PM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:uu9lo3dij2fkq1ic5pfnn9ct1m18mpr6l1@4ax.com...
Forget about the $127 billion surplus that President Clinton left the
nation after he moved out of the White House or the fact that Clinton
paid down hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt.
The national debt increased every year
of the Clinton administration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican administration tanked the U.S. economy.. |
13 Jan 2008 06:42:37 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:uu9lo3dij2fkq1ic5pfnn9ct1m18mpr6l1@4ax.com...
Forget about the $127 billion surplus that President Clinton left the
nation after he moved out of the White House or the fact that Clinton
paid down hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt.
The national debt increased every year
of the Clinton administration.
That's a LIE... It didn't increase. It was kept at bay, while your
fucking chimpanzee king georgie iv more then doubled it... He did more
damage then Reagan, who took us from the largest creditor to largest
debtor nation on Earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican administration tanked the U.S. economy.. |
14 Jan 2008 07:40:17 AM |
|
|
"The Pretzel" <pretzel@chokeonit.org> wrote in message
news:478aaffe$0$5007$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Bob wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:uu9lo3dij2fkq1ic5pfnn9ct1m18mpr6l1@4ax.com...
Forget about the $127 billion surplus that President Clinton left the
nation after he moved out of the White House or the fact that Clinton
paid down hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt.
The national debt increased every year
of the Clinton administration.
That's a LIE... It didn't increase.
I realize that facts tend to get in the way of the
ideologue, but here are the numbers:
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
It was kept at bay, while your fucking chimpanzee king georgie iv more
then doubled it... He did more damage then Reagan, who took us from the
largest creditor to largest debtor nation on Earth.
I believe that Bush has done a poor job as president,
and have posted the reasons many times. Fiscal policy
was certainly one of the reasons.
From the language in your post, you appear to be
a child. Are you a child or an adult?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starkiller" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican administration tanked the U.S. economy.. |
13 Jan 2008 06:51:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:42:37 -0800, The Pretzel
<pretzel@chokeonit.org> wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:uu9lo3dij2fkq1ic5pfnn9ct1m18mpr6l1@4ax.com...
Forget about the $127 billion surplus that President Clinton left the
nation after he moved out of the White House or the fact that Clinton
paid down hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt.
The national debt increased every year
of the Clinton administration.
That's a LIE... It didn't increase. It was kept at bay, while your
fucking chimpanzee king georgie iv more then doubled it... He did more
damage then Reagan, who took us from the largest creditor to largest
debtor nation on Earth.
Guess you need to write these folks and tell them they're lying then
yes?
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Punch in Jan 20 1993 thru Jan 20 2000 and tell us what weeks the debt
went down or stayed the same.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starkiller" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican administration tanked the U.S. economy.. |
13 Jan 2008 06:47:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:15:28 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.add> wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:uu9lo3dij2fkq1ic5pfnn9ct1m18mpr6l1@4ax.com...
Forget about the $127 billion surplus that President Clinton left the
nation after he moved out of the White House or the fact that Clinton
paid down hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt.
The national debt increased every year
of the Clinton administration.
Indeed, and that information can be found here:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion
in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been
reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998,
FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum
of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B
+ $230B = $422B, not $360B).
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President
Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having
generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and
the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360
billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an
increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury
website ( http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np )
where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt
since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's
fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and
considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October
1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994),
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor
did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush
subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost
balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only"
$17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive
number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in
September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing
deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the
first year of the Bush administration.
Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his
first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September
30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending
September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund
where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount
refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38
billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were
not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's
last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.
Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave
President Bush with a surplus.
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JoeC" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican administration tanked the U.S. economy.. |
13 Jan 2008 07:31:15 PM |
|
|
Harry Hope wrote:
From The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1/11/08:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/347046_erbe13.html?source=rss
Bush tanked the U.S. economy
By BONNIE ERBE
GUEST COLUMNIST
Recession, like menopause, is a retrospective diagnosis.
You don't know you're in one until you've been in it for at least two
quarters (referring to a recession) or a year (for menopause).
The question for me is not:
Are we hitting a recession in 2008?
It
That will be the cure for illegal immigration. When the jobs are gone
the people will go home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican administration tanked the U.S. economy.. |
13 Jan 2008 09:05:50 PM |
|
|
"JoeC" <ncoic@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:478abb7a$0$10960$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Harry Hope wrote:
From The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1/11/08:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/347046_erbe13.html?source=rss
Bush tanked the U.S. economy
By BONNIE ERBE
GUEST COLUMNIST
Recession, like menopause, is a retrospective diagnosis. You don't know
you're in one until you've been in it for at least two
quarters (referring to a recession) or a year (for menopause). The
question for me is not: Are we hitting a recession in 2008? It
That will be the cure for illegal immigration. When the jobs are gone the
people will go home.
Bullhockey.
They are the one who will not be laid off, with their low salaries, no
benefits, and subservient mien.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoeC" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican administration tanked the U.S. economy.. |
14 Jan 2008 08:28:46 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"JoeC" <ncoic@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:478abb7a$0$10960$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Harry Hope wrote:
From The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1/11/08:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/347046_erbe13.html?source=rss
Bush tanked the U.S. economy
By BONNIE ERBE
GUEST COLUMNIST
Recession, like menopause, is a retrospective diagnosis. You don't know
you're in one until you've been in it for at least two
quarters (referring to a recession) or a year (for menopause). The
question for me is not: Are we hitting a recession in 2008? It
That will be the cure for illegal immigration. When the jobs are gone the
people will go home.
Bullhockey.
They are the one who will not be laid off, with their low salaries, no
benefits, and subservient mien.
Larry
I am sure all the grass cutters and house keepers will loose their jobs
when people stop buying the service. Fewer houses beuing build fewer
illegas needed to build them. I always though when any thing bad
happens women and minorities will be hardest hit. We will buy fewer
things that illegals do and they will loose their jobs. They are here
to work and if they can find a job they may as well go back from where
they came where it costs less to be poor.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
