Thread: Econ 101: the Trickle-up ploy

Gee-wiz; George is sending my wife and me 1,200 bucks in a few weeks to help stimulate our county’s economy. Let’s see, $1,200 at $4.00 a gallon gets me 300 gallons of gas.
Now we can go cruising for the next few months and make his Texas oil buddies and those poor sheiks in the middle east even richer. Guess you could call it “trickle up economics?”

Gee wiz Jerry, he's been formulating that plan since his first day in office. Which explains where all his effort has gone, ' cause it sure isn't in helping the citizens of this country.

East Coast Jerry's RV will be very happy to be full.

You could spend it at wal-mart. I here China needs it more than George.

I purchased 6 rocking chairs at Wally World and ... surprise!!!!!!
They were Manufactured , Not in China..... but, in Indonesia..... the largest Muslim population in the world....

What happened to Sam Walton's dream about selling only products "Made in the USA" ??????

Originally Posted by michael ivie

You could spend it at wal-mart. I here China needs it more than George.

That would only be fair seeing as Bush and the other Politicians are borrowing the money from China to give us. Kind of like people who get too far into debt so they get another credit card so that things will be better for awhile. This "loan" we are getting will have to be paid for by our children and grandchildren, along with the costs of Bush's Wars and the bail our of Banks and Investment companies.

Now we have McCain and Clinton wanting to do away with the gas tax for the summer, doesn't lower prices increase demand which in turn increases prices, it seems to me that if that happens prices will be even higher after labor day than if they left things alone, but it's an election year, maybe they don't think $1200 is enough to buy our votes.

Originally Posted by David Banks

East Coast Jerry's RV will be very happy to be full.

Maybe so. But, JP does not seem to be much of a "Dubyah" fan.

Although this post doesnt have any thing to do with home inspection, Ill bite.

Barrack and Hillary want to raise my taxes to pay for "universal" health care. I already have insurance, dont need it. One of my engineer buddies from Canada has told me what a great (haha) system it is there.

Is George right? No, I dont agree with some of his stuff. Are his opponents right? No I dont agree with some of their stuff.

Pick the lesser of the evils and go with it. There hasnt been a worthy president since Reagan.

"There hasnt been a worthy president since Reagan."
Hmmmm...... how about TR?

Notice the word "since"

Originally Posted by imported_John Smith

Pick the lesser of the evils and go with it. There hasnt been a worthy president since Reagan.

Reagan? Do you mean the guy that came up with "trickle-down Reaganomics"?

Are you referring to the guy that ignored AIDS during his presidency?

You must be joking.

No joke, Gunnar. Tons of people revere RR. Makes me feel like a Stranger in a Strange Land. The day he was re-elected I was in a state of shock. I'd say the same thing about GWB, except I suspect he wasn't really "re-elected" any more than he was "elected".

Those of us in CA got to know Reagan rather well (oh the stories), a Hollywood and TV actor and a bad one at that and while governor he was somewhat a joke and far more dangerous when elected president. Now we got another bad actor as governor who wants to be president, but alas, he is not native born,,,,, thank God.

I believe Hillary can do for the economy as Bill did so she has my vote! Nothing against Obama just more faith in Hillary.

Im looking forward to my check in the mail. I can get a new attachment for my Infrared Camera. Put some gas in my S class MB. Add my part the House of the Lord to get the Good news of Jesus Christ out to all that have an ear that Jesus Christ
loves them and that they are wellcome in GODS house. And buy a BIG FAT STAKE.

Ronald Reagan was a good man. G.W. Bush is a good man. Just as i think most of you are all good men. But only Christ was without Sin.

Did start a fire?

Love Ya.

Ron

Ron,

How about keeping the God is Good and Jesus stuff out of this board, save it for the religious boards.

Jesus saves at the same place his brothers Juan, Julio and Jorge save, as does his sister Juanita.

Then they send it back home to Mexico to help their family.

At they are helping somebody. Here in the states the churches seem to think that having a big church, bringing in lots of money to have a bigger church, is the goal. Why not give it all away, you know, to help others, in stead of building big buildings and then having to heat and cool them, much less maintain them.

God is Good, so are Wheaties and Cheerios - but I prefer oatmeal.

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

...G.W. Bush is a good man...

You mean this guy?

Econ 101:

The George solution ......
Give them a couple of bucks each... that'll shut em up.....

Originally Posted by Victor DaGraca

Econ 101:

The George solution ......
Give them a couple of bucks each... that'll shut em up.....

??Who controls the House and the Senate? Hmmmm?

Originally Posted by James Duffin

I believe Hillary can do for the economy as Bill did so she has my vote! Nothing against Obama just more faith in Hillary.

And just what was it that Ole Bill did for the economy?

Michael

Do you mean NOW.... or when this whole mess got started?

Im still looking forward to the BIG FAT STEAK AND I THINK I WILL HAVE A COLD BEER WITH THAT. Ya and i should pic up a few rounds for the shotgun and the 44 The wife just love to see me with my bible in one hand and a gun in the other. GOD BLESS AMERICA. Is this a great country or what!!!

The guns are for fun/hunting for food.

Keep your shorts on San Francisco.

PS. I can't stand oatmeal. But some like it and thats ok.

NOW I WANT MY CHECK!!!

Ron the Capitalist Pig.

As a transplanted (native) Californian, I can echo Jerry's post about Ray-gun. We really can't forget StarWars (not the movie) or Strategic Defense Initiative fiasco that is still being funded. What a joke. If you want to get pissed off about your tax dollars, pick up the October 4, 2007 issue of Rolling Stone and read the article.

As far as Bill Clinton goes. I agree he is morally bankrupt, no question. However, I know my stock portfolio was in much better shape when he was in office.

I also have to think that Al Gore would not have led us into a war through lies. Look corrupt up in the dictionary, and you will see our V.P..

Anyway, I will happily spend my money when I get it from Uncle Sam. I will probably spend it to somehow help the local economy (Knoxville). I'm also pretty sure I won't be voting for the "more of the same" party.

To Imported JS - I have insurance too, but my premiums keep going up and it's like another mortgage payment. I'm lucky, I can at least afford (right now anyway) to have insurance. But there are lots and lots of people that can not afford insurance, and can not get insurance. Health care in America is a huge problem, and something needs to be done about it. More than the "let them eat cake" attitude that the govt. (and some people) is doing now.

I'm off the soapbox now.
JF

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Ron,

How about keeping the God is Good and Jesus stuff out of this board, save it for the religious boards.

Jerry (and Fritz),

This is the general chit-chat board (ala Non-technical). Anything can be discussed. Just as with the TV, if you don't like it, change the channel.

I don't agree with some of the generalized political statements made here, but I don't go around telling other to keep it off the this board.

Michael, I too have wondered what ol' Bill did for the economy!

Now, everyone play nice and have a good day!

Bruce

The best thing Bill did was let Newt and the boys run the show.

He was keep off track with the little play thing with the skirt.
And old cegar.

Inspite of his first order of the day of a retro active tax hike.

Thats what you will get with a Dem a Tax hike.

Things went well after 1992.

I've always been a strong supporter of the Republicans, and probably always will be. Of all the issues - religion, abortion, guns, nuclear power, insurance, and whether Hillary was really under sniper fire when she visited Bosnia... the one issue that's really hurting my family right now is the price of gasoline.
No matter who, if someone could get the price of gas down below $2/ gallon, I would work tirelessly to get them elected as president - whether it was Obama, Hillary, Bill, McCain, Ralph Nader, or whomever.
The gas prices are undoubtedly going higher, and Americans are forced to pay, no matter what. Many,if not most Americans commute to work at least 20-30-45 minutes. If you don't buy gas, you don't work, and you get no money. Many people, myself included, are spending more on gas, and less on other things. At what point do the gas prices take money from mortgage payments, insurance premiums, tax payments, etc? Some people, I'm sure, have done without a meal, just to buy gas to get to work. And yet, all our elected leaders seem to just throw up their hands.
If we could have gas at $0.99/gallon, maybe we should take over Iraq's oil fields -and Iran's, and Venezuala's, and...

Andy when i got my first car it was a 1952 chev. 6 banger 3 on the three gas was 25 cents a gal. I work at the gas station for a $ 1.15 an hr. Now gas is $ 3.50 Gal and i make of $ 100.00 hr It all works out in the end. A house cost 15K Now 350K

I understand that some are hurting we just adjust with the times.

I keep the truckers in my prayers they are the ones that get hit in the pocket.

We all need to better our own programs. We will never get a head of the game if we look to others. No Dem is going to fix this Gas problem.
If we don't get out of the ground and to the Gas station then the price will just keep going up.

There is more Oil in this old earth then we could ever ues or burn up.

A world without an end.

I DO NEED MORE GAS FOR MY HARLEY. GOT TO RIDE.

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

A house cost 15K Now 350K

I paid $7,800 for my first house. Sold it two years later for $14,500.

Originally Posted by Victor DaGraca

Econ 101:

The George solution ......
Give them a couple of bucks each... that'll shut em up.....

Victor,

I assume you meant that GW was sending out the money in the economic stimulus plan

That can't happen without the Dem controlled House and Senate passing the legislation.

GW signed and I think he was wrong for doing so.

What's the sense in borrowing money to give a few bucks back to the people?

What the idiots in both parties should be talking about if any of them were serious would be real cuts in government spending and congressional pork followed by tax cuts.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Michael thank you!!! well said.

We are on the same team on that.

Best

Ron

Michael;
Absolutely right. Who ,exactly, is the rocket scientist that came up with this brilliant plan to stimulate our economy?
Someone had to have had that first, original thought. "Gee, boss, why don't we just toss 'em a couple of bucks?"
And then... Someone actually approved of that Idea.

Government is chock full of unintended consequences, and this one is going to be a beauty. Sure, it'll buy Ma and Pa a medium grade flat panel lcd, but, the Retailer will get a minor share, The transporter will get a minor share, while Samsung and LG will get the Lion's share. Meanwhile, the 10 year old kid working at Samsung's plant is doing the job that a 30 year old lost in Topeka, Kansas. (ok, it's a stretch, but you get the picture)
Basically, I see this as a "Foreign Economy Stimulus Plan"

There's blame enough for the mess we're in. And the mess was not started during the Dem controlled House and Senate. It began with Georges mandate to the Housing Industry to create affordable housing and easy money.

1 In 2004 the Federal government called for increasing available affordable housing by 7 Million units by the year 2014
2. In 2004 the Federal Government called for lower taxes and less burdensome regulations on entrepreneurs; and policies to eliminate barriers to homeownership.
3. In 2004 The President proposed supporting low-income families who are saving for a down payment, and ensuring that good financing options are available.
4. In 2004 The President proposed Regulatory reforms in order to open doors for millions of American families who want to buy or rent an affordable home in the community of their choice
5. In 2004 President Bush "Challenged" the private sector by calling upon the housing industry, including the, Federal Home Loan Banks, the homebuilders, and the mortgage and finance industry to join with Federal, State, and local governments to help America meet the goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing.
6. In 2002 The President announced the "American Dream Down payment Initiative."
7. In 2005 The President proposed the "Zero-Down payment Initiative"

Ok.... I'm getting tired of looking up these references but, I guess that a pattern is beginning to emerge....
What EXACTLY did Our leaders think was going to happen when you give people with NO credit history, BAD credit history NO money for a down payment even... what ammounts to carte blanche in joining the millions of responsible home owners that got theirs the "old fashioned way"
I think that it's time that the fingers started pointing inwardly.


Increasing Affordable Housing and Expanding Homeownership


And, Let me edit to add this. I am a registered "Independent" and believe that anyone that blindly follows the policies of one political party is an Idiot.

Originally Posted by Victor DaGraca

-----stimulate our economy?
.
Someone had to have had that first, original thought. "Gee, boss, why don't we just toss 'em a couple of bucks?"

The Tax Rebate is tied to Your 2008 Tax Bill. Due to the IRS April 15 2009.

They want the money back.

Think of it as a Pay Day Loan.

Billy;
I asked my tax preparer about that, and, at the time, he told me that the debate going on amongst our various governmental parasites was one of taxation.
Ie: is this money that we're getting, going to be considered "taxable income" .... stay tuned.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

And just what was it that Ole Bill did for the economy?

Greenspan's memoirs: Clinton saved, Bush spent
Email Print Normal font Large font Bob Woodward
September 18, 2007

FORMER US president Bill Clinton emerges as the political hero in the memoirs of one of America's most powerful and influential economists of the past two decades, Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage".

But in his new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he levels unusually harsh criticism at President George Bush and the Republican Party, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint.

"My biggest frustration remained the President's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."

Greenspan accuses the Republicans, who held the majority in the US House of Representatives until last year, of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of Congress.

But he adds later: "I don't think the Democrats won. It was the Republicans who lost. The Democrats came to power in the Congress because they were the only party left standing."

Greenspan, 81, indirectly criticises his friend and colleague from the Ford administration, Vice-President Dick Cheney. Former Bush Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has quoted Cheney as once saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

Greenspan says, "'Deficits don't matter', to my chagrin, became part of the Republicans' rhetoric." He argues that "deficits must matter" and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation "and economic devastation".

When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes: "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets … I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $US1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office."

By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, governance

had "become dangerously dysfunctional".
In contrast, he calls Clinton a "risk taker" who had shown a "preference for dealing in facts", and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates. "Here was a fellow information hound … We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world … I never ceased to be surprised by his fascination with economic detail: the effect of Canadian lumber on housing prices and inflation … He had an eye for the big picture too."

During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be "a financial crisis," Greenspan told the president.

"The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do."

Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first". Greenspan writes: "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."

"President Clinton's old-fashioned attitude toward debt might have had a more lasting effect on the nation's priorities. Instead, his influence was diluted by the uproar about Monica Lewinsky."

When he first heard and read details of the Clinton-Lewinsky encounters, Greenspan writes: "I was incredulous. 'There is no way these stories could be correct,' I told my friends. 'No way."'

Later, when it was verified, Greenspan says: "I wondered how the president could take such a risk. It seemed so alien to the Bill Clinton I knew, and made me feel disappointed and sad."

Known for his restrained, if not incomprehensible, public statements over the past several decades, Greenspan's direct criticism of Bush and his economic policies comes as the economy is emerging as an issue in the 2008 presidential race.

And the man Greenspan praises so highly for fiscal probity is married to the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton.

The politically charged observations are scattered throughout the first half of the book, while the second half offers a graduate education in global economics.

Greenspan clearly considers China the big economic question of the future. "I have no doubt that the Communist Party of China can maintain an authoritarian, quasi-capitalist, relatively prosperous regime for a time. But, without the political safety valve of the democratic process, I doubt the long-term success of such a regime," he writes.

The Age of Turbulence is likely to be mined word by word on Wall Street, in the search for clues on how to make billions.

Greenspan, for instance, has nothing but praise for hedge funds, which he describes as "a vibrant trillion-dollar industry dominated by US firms". He claims that hedge funds help eliminate inefficiency in the markets and scoffs at proposals to regulate them, declaring: "Why do we wish to inhibit the pollinating bees of Wall Street?"

Though cautious about the coming decades, Greenspan ultimately shows a flash of hope: "Adaptation is in our nature," he writes, "a fact that leads me to be deeply optimistic about our future."

WASHINGTON POST

[QUOTE=David Banks;41408]Greenspan's memoirs: Clinton saved, Bush spent

Greenspan, the guy who during 18 years considered the only thing inflationary to be pay raises for the working class and who's cure for almost everything was control of wages and lower interest rates, leading to the situation we're in now.

Originally Posted by Victor DaGraca

Billy;
I asked my tax preparer about that, and, at the time, he told me that the debate going on amongst our various governmental parasites was one of taxation.
Ie: is this money that we're getting, going to be considered "taxable income" .... stay tuned.

The last time they did this it was not considered taxable income, this time they are calling it a Tax Rebate

[QUOTE=Lewis Capaul;41413]

Originally Posted by David Banks

Greenspan's memoirs: Clinton saved, Bush spent

Greenspan, the guy who during 18 years considered the only thing inflationary to be pay raises for the working class and who's cure for almost everything was control of wages and lower interest rates, leading to the situation we're in now.

Tha article was posted in response to this question. Do not care about Alan Greenspan. Just trying to answer the question.
Originally Posted by Michael Larson
And just what was it that Ole Bill did for the economy?


More Facts
Economic boom

Mr Clinton's most enduring legacy is likely to be the economic boom which began shortly before he took office in 1992.

During the eight years of the presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the US had a gross national product of $10,000bn - one quarter of the entire world economic output.

The booming US economy has brought economic benefits right across the income spectrum.

The unemployment rate has dropped by half, to 4%, a 40-year-low, while the economy has created some 15 million jobs.

[quote=David Banks;41418]

Originally Posted by Lewis Capaul

Tha article was posted in response to this question. Do not care about Alan Greenspan. Just trying to answer the question.
Originally Posted by Michael Larson
And just what was it that Ole Bill did for the economy?


More Facts
Economic boom

Mr Clinton's most enduring legacy is likely to be the economic boom which began shortly before he took office in 1992.

During the eight years of the presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the US had a gross national product of $10,000bn - one quarter of the entire world economic output.

The booming US economy has brought economic benefits right across the income spectrum.

The unemployment rate has dropped by half, to 4%, a 40-year-low, while the economy has created some 15 million jobs.

My only position on these statements (and I admit that I'm not an expert on political/economic issues) is yes, the economy was doing well while Clinton was in office, but how does a sitting president control the economy? Who controls an economy? Wall Street investors, business, supply and demand, personal productivity, legislators and lawmaking, international events -- multiple factors, correct? But the president? No, no more influence than the other factors. He may or may not sign a bill, but I would be hard pressed to be convinced that Clinton was responsible for economic upswing of the 90s anymore than I believe Bush is responsible for the current downturn.

And I hope history is not being rewritten, but unemployment was 4.0 in 2000 (lowest since 1969). Does Bush get credit or Clinton? I mean it was for the whole year 2000?

Where can I find the unemployment rate for previous years?

Bruce

[quote=JB Thompson;41424]

Originally Posted by David Banks

................... is yes, the economy was doing well while Clinton was in office, but how does a sitting president control the economy? Who controls an economy? Wall Street investors, business, supply and demand, personal productivity, legislators and lawmaking, international events -- multiple factors, correct? But the president? No, no more influence than the other factors. He may or may not sign a bill, but I would be hard pressed to be convinced that Clinton was responsible for economic upswing of the 90s anymore than I believe Bush is responsible for the current downturn..................

Well said Bruce, Politicians always take credit for success and always blame someone else for failures.

When is the last time you heard a politician say he/she was wrong?

IMHO the economy flourished during the Clinton years because of the setup work done during the Reagen Bush era and the Republican take over of the house in 1994 after 40 plus years of failed Democrat policies and entitlement programs starting with FDR.

The tech bubble of the 90s was real and the tax coffers overflowed even though the Reagen era tax cuts on capital gains where in effect. The failure to enact Hillary's heath plan in the early in the 90s probably also contributed to a roaring economy.

For the most part Clinton was not allowed a significant role in shaping the economy.

So whether Repub or Dem, usually the best thing is to stay out of the way and let the free market work.

Does anyone think Ol' Bill would have had time to mess around if he had real problems to solve?

I abhor political agendas and posturing and do know that I was better off under a basically corrupt Clinton when our government had a surplus than during our current numb-nuts who has been trying his very best to bankrupt us while enriching his oil buddies. As a life long Republican who sees nothing but corruption in both major parties and unbelievable gross stupidly in how the government runs our country, state, counties, cities - it’s appalling to say the least.
Don't care for any of the current candidates and am basically depressed that this is the best out country could come up with, 3 BS artists beholding to a number of special interest groups, but apparently that's what it takes to day. To bad, so sad, we are all truly F___ed! Guess I’ve become an anarchist at heart?

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

I abhor political agendas and posturing and do know that I was better off under a basically corrupt Clinton when our government had a surplus than during our current numb-nuts who has been trying his very best to bankrupt us while enriching his oil buddies. As a life long Republican who sees nothing but corruption in both major parties and unbelievable gross stupidly in how the government runs our country, state, counties, cities - it’s appalling to say the least.
Don't care for any of the current candidates and am basically depressed that this is the best out country could come up with, 3 BS artists beholding to a number of special interest groups, but apparently that's what it takes to day. To bad, so sad, we are all truly F___ed! Guess I’ve become an anarchist at heart?

Well said Jerry. It is sad.

Break out your calculator for the facts on gas prices. Assume you drive 15K a year and have a vehicle that gets 15 mpg. That comes out to 1000 gallons. At 3.50 a gallon, the total fuel cost is $3500. At 2.00 a gallon, the total fuel cost is $2000. Difference $1500. Not chump change, but certainly not going to change my standard of living much.

Now raise your taxes (ie the Democratic plan) 2%.
You will likely be taxed an additionaly 2000.00 on your 100,000 income. Suddenly that $1500 doesnt look so bad.

I know there are many ways to spin this, but Reagan was right, the wealthy handle their money better and it indeed "trickles down". Not like Hillary and Barracks plan of "trickle on the successful".

John
I know in your heart you no doubt mean well and I'm also certain you’re a good person at heart, but the so called “trickle-down” of Ronald Reagan’s trickle down economy of which you speak has always been a stream of warm urine of the very wealthy peeing on the working class of which most of us on this BB belong too. There is absolutely no way to comprehend, forgive or overlook the disparity between the medium level worker’s annual salary and that of the company’s CEO, not to mention their so called “golden parachutes” including the outrageous bonuses they get while running a corporation into bankruptcy.

Communism certainly squelched the disparity between rich and poor. In the end, everyone was poor.

Im successful and not ashamed of it. I get my butt out of bed everyday and work hard to be a productive member of society. I dont need politician pandering

I pay my taxes, and am a thankful American. I hope everyone on this list enjoys the same (or better) standard of living that I enjoy.

Listen to Biz Radio 1110 in Houston for about a week. It will change your whole outlook on life. They are on the web.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Don't care for any of the current candidates and am basically depressed that this is the best out country could come up with, 3 BS artists beholding to a number of special interest groups, but apparently that's what it takes to day. To bad, so sad, we are all truly F___ed! Guess I’ve become an anarchist at heart?

Jerry M.
We may not agree politically but I am in full agreement with this paragraph.

Originally Posted by JB Thompson

And I hope history is not being rewritten, but unemployment was 4.0 in 2000 (lowest since 1969). Does Bush get credit or Clinton?

Let's look at the chart.

Clinton took office in 1993 after the 1992 election, Bush took office in 2001 after the 2000 election, so all of 2000 was Clinton.

1992 7.5 (peak from earlier) Bush I
1993 6.9 Clinton
1994 6.1 Clinton
1995 5.6 Clinton
1996 5.4 Clinton
1997 4.9 Clinton
1998 4.5 Clinton
1999 4.2 Clinton
2000 4.0 Clinton
2001 4.7 Bush II
2002 5.8 Bush II
2003 6.0 Bush II
2004 5.5 Bush II
2005 5.1 Bush II
2006 4.6 Bush II

Which had the better record? Hands down - Clinton.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Let's look at the chart.

Clinton took office in 1993 after the 1992 election, Bush took office in 2001 after the 2000 election, so all of 2000 was Clinton.

1992 7.5 (peak from earlier) Bush I
1993 6.9 Clinton
1994 6.1 Clinton
1995 5.6 Clinton
1996 5.4 Clinton
1997 4.9 Clinton
1998 4.5 Clinton
1999 4.2 Clinton
2000 4.0 Clinton
2001 4.7 Bush II
2002 5.8 Bush II
2003 6.0 Bush II
2004 5.5 Bush II
2005 5.1 Bush II
2006 4.6 Bush II

Which had the better record? Hands down - Clinton.

You misunderstand me. Neither owns the record.

[quote=Jerry Peck;41476Which had the better record? Hands down - Clinton.[/quote]If you ant to measure by a single indicator that's true. But the overly revered Clinton had no 911, no Afganistan, and no Iraq to deal with.

Originally Posted by imported_John Smith

Break out your calculator for the facts on gas prices. Assume you drive 15K a year and have a vehicle that gets 15 mpg. That comes out to 1000 gallons. At 3.50 a gallon, the total fuel cost is $3500. At 2.00 a gallon, the total fuel cost is $2000. Difference $1500. Not chump change, but certainly not going to change my standard of living much.

You forgot the cost of heating. Here in Northeast when I bought my house in 2001 I payed 1.10 a gallon. Now $3 if I pre pay. Probably more this year. I use about 900 gallons per year. In seven years my heating cost has tripled.
My Electric bill has doubled.

Now raise your taxes (ie the Democratic plan) 2%.
You will likely be taxed an additionaly 2000.00 on your 100,000 income. Suddenly that $1500 doesnt look so bad.

I do not think rolling back some of the the Bush tax cuts will effect anyone in the 100,000 range. Besides what about the deficit. You do not care?

I know there are many ways to spin this, but Reagan was right, the wealthy handle their money better and it indeed "trickles down". Not like Hillary and Barracks plan of "trickle on the successful".

Um. Lets see. Bush senior recession early 90's. Who's fault was that? Reagan's? Bush Jr coming recession 2008. I see a pattern here.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

As a life long Republican who sees nothing but corruption in both major parties and unbelievable gross stupidly in how the government runs our country, state, counties, cities - it’s appalling to say the least.

WC Jerry,

I was a life long republican too (life long registered republican anyway), but when we moved to Ormond Beach and I had to register again, I had had it with W, so I finally registered Democrat.

But I'm an Independent at heart - the only reason I never registered that way was to allow me to vote in more elections (otherwise I would basically only have been allowed to vote in the General Elections).

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

If you ant to measure by a single indicator that's true.

That was the single indicator which was posted, and the single indicator I was referencing.

But the overly revered Clinton had no 911, no Afganistan, and no Iraq to deal with.

And did not bankrupt the economy in support of his oil friends and business friends, giving billions and billions and billions on no bid contracts to his friends.

Those events could have been responded to differently had not the person been a gun toting cowboy with a chip on his shoulder and a nit to pick with a now deceased dictator.

As Bush I told Bush II, there is no need to go into Baghdad.

80 Billion a month in taxpayers money and people are worried about Dem's raising taxes. If you want a war pay for it! I guess it is a credit card war

Originally Posted by David Banks

80 Billion a month in taxpayers money and people are worried about Dem's raising taxes. If you want a war pay for it! I guess it is a credit card war

Source please? You would appear to be off by a factor of 10.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Source please? You would appear to be off by a factor of 10.

You are semi correct Sir. I meant a year.

ABC News: Cost of the Iraq War Hits $12B/Month
Projected Iraq War Costs Soar - washingtonpost.com
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

My 2-Cents:

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Gee-wiz; George is sending my wife and me 1,200 bucks in a few weeks to help stimulate our county’s economy. Let’s see, $1,200 at $4.00 a gallon gets me 300 gallons of gas.
Now we can go cruising for the next few months and make his Texas oil buddies and those poor sheiks in the middle east even richer. Guess you could call it “trickle up economics?”

Can you really blame George for your having to use your "stimulus" money for gas?

He proposed drilling in ANWAR. Blocked by DEMS.
He proposed new rules to increase the number of offshore oil rigs. Blocked by DEMS.
He propose relaxing rules to increase the number of refineries. Blocked by DEMS.


He proposed making 2001 tax cuts permanent. DEMS let them expire.

Now we have huge increases in food costs not just because of increased fuel but also due to increased prices of corn due to demand to use corn for ethanol, which uses only slightly less non-renewable fuel to produce than the amount of ethanol produced. What a farce.

David, please stop.

You're making to much sense.

Can you really blame George for your having to use your "stimulus" money for gas?

He proposed drilling in ANWAR. Blocked by DEMS.
He proposed new rules to increase the number of offshore oil rigs. Blocked by DEMS.
He propose relaxing rules to increase the number of refineries. Blocked by DEMS.


He proposed making 2001 tax cuts permanent. DEMS let them expire.

And he took a budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit.

Originally Posted by Ken Carr

And he took a budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit.

All by himself?

Gosh, he is powerful.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

David, please stop.

You're making to much sense.

Thank you

Originally Posted by David Nice

Can you really blame George for your having to use your "stimulus" money for gas?

He proposed drilling in ANWAR. Blocked by DEMS.
He proposed new rules to increase the number of offshore oil rigs. Blocked by DEMS.
He propose relaxing rules to increase the number of refineries. Blocked by DEMS.


He proposed making 2001 tax cuts permanent. DEMS let them expire.

Now we have huge increases in food costs not just because of increased fuel but also due to increased prices of corn due to demand to use corn for ethanol, which uses only slightly less non-renewable fuel to produce than the amount of ethanol produced. What a farce.

Drilling in ANWAR? Part of the reason the Bill continues to be defeated is that the Republicans refuse to include wording that the Oil from ANWAR will come to the U.S. instead of Indonesia, Japan, and other countries where the majority of Alaska's Oil now goes.

Tax cuts are okay, but permanent tax cuts are not, things change, especially when spending increases instead of cuts are part of the package, and tax cuts should be targeted towards those who will provide the most benefit, not the top 3 or 4 percent who don't use the cuts to create jobs, at least not in the U.S, or use the cuts to add to their profit margins. Remember Bush's Wars aren't included in any budget and are not paid for by taxes any way, yourkids taxes will pay for them though.

"He proposed relaxing rules to increase the number of refineries", would you want one of those "relaxed rules refineries" in your back yard, or would you want one that meets the highest environmental safety standards? Bush and the Oil Companies have been using the lack of refineries as an excuse to raise prices for decades, when and where did they propose to build any refineries recently, the arguments against such refineries isn't usually if they are to be built but to what standard they're to be built, look at their profits since Bush took Office, a new record every quarter, look at their ads about how environmentally conscious they are, then look at reality, don't you think that they make enough profit to build environmentally safe refineries, or that they could use the $36 Billion we give them as an incentive to build them?

Bush and the Republicans had total control of the Governemtn for 6 years, they passed they Bills that spent all the money, they increased the deficit and their actions drove the value of the dollar to record lows. That record low dollar is responsible for most of the Oil Price increases, OPEC says there is no shortage but that for every one percent the dollar drops the price of Oil goes up $4, many American Economists have been saying just about the same thing for years, now it appears that the Big Oil producing countries are going to abandon the dollar or at least the fixed links between their currency and the dollar.

Bio Fuels, sure they're partly responsible for the increase in food prices, but much less that the weather, population increases, and the industrial growth in much of Asia, then of course there's Greed, probably more responsible for high food prices, just like for Oil, as anything. Many of the crop failures around the world that have lead to High Prices are linked to genetically engineered crops and the policies of Monsanto and other bio/ag companies.

What's really funny is watching all those Republicans, who had been on a 6 year spending frenzy, preach about cutting spending and being responsible, now that they aren't in power, they even blame the Democrats for not stopping them, and their Presidential nominee is running aroung the country promising to spend hundreds of billionson local projects while not being able to explain how he's going to pay for them and promising more and bigger tax cuts at the same time.

Where the oil goes makes no difference. The idea is to increase supply. Oil is a commodity and is fungible. Most of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico but the price is a reflection of demand and supply. More oil or even the potential of more oil on the market will reduce the price.

Tax cuts should always to permanent. That would force politicians to raise them later if needed and to have to face the electorate for their decisions. Your "economic stimulus" will also be paid for by those that follow. The real problem is and remains uncontrolled government spending by both parties.

To use the "backyard" argument says only that you think there is no place left in this country to build them. Have you flown across the country lately? It's a big place. The environmentalist oppose them no matter where they are proposed. Just ask them. Have they ever provided a location that they would not object to?

Oil company profits are on the order of 8-10% ROI. Is that truly excessive? NO!
Do you know what the tax rate for oil company profits is? You should go look it up.

Yep, decades of overspending has created this mess. BOTH parties are responsible. the shrinking value of the dollar is responsible for most of the increase we see. It's much less for other currencies.

The food prices will only get worse due to increased energy cost, continued farm subsidies and burning our food in are autos.

What's even funnier is that now that the Dems are back in control of the house and senate there has been no indication of the desire to be fiscally responsible beyond proposing even more taxes. It's the spending stupid. (not directed at you personally)

Again, both parties love to spend and love to approve each others earmarks all the while blaming the other guys for profligate spending.

Excellent post Michael. If only you would run for the press.

You got my vote.

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

Excellent post Michael. If only you would run for the press.

You got my vote.

Best

Ron

Thanks Ron.
I wish someone would run that even said half of what I did in that post.
I think we are in for a very rough ride no matter who wins in the Fall.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

I think we are in for a very rough ride no matter who wins in the Fall.

Agreed.

After 8 years of Bushwarconomics, the Democrats will have a real hard time turning it around.

Hold the faith, though, they might be able to pull it off, they've done it before.