Thread: The strongest economy in the world

"Since Bush took office, the US has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs.

At the beginning of this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that for the first time in 90 years, the US is now paying noticeably more to foreign creditors than it receives from its investments abroad."

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

That's because all the new jobs are mainly healthcare desk clerks. And, incidentally, health care costs have skyrocketed since Bush took office.

Thankfully ole GWB didn't sign that Kyoto Treaty thing either ... otherwise many, many jobs would have been lost. China and India would have loved to see the US sign the piece of crap.

True or false: overall poverty is higher now that Bush has been in office for 5 years than before.

True or false: median income is higher now that Bush has been in office for 5 years than before.

True or false: the numbers of Americans and the percentage of Americans without health insurance is at a record high.

True or false: consumer prices have increased more in the past 5 years than in any 5 year period in over 30 years.

Lower Tax Rates Yield Higher Tax Revenues

"Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush II all understood what the Laffer Curve was all about. They all cut taxes, they all enjoyed consequent explosions of economic growth so vigorous that the Treasury was awash in ever greater tax revenue. This is not a matter of political opinion or partisanship; this is an empirical, objective fact backed by hard data.

The U.S. budget deficit has fallen more quickly than even the Bush administration predicted, despite the tax cuts that Democrats moronically claim boost deficits. It is an excess of spending, not a dearth of taxation (the federal government confiscates about 18.4% of what the private sector produces), that causes deficits. If Democrats were genuinely concerned about red ink, they'd demand entitlement reform. That they stymie entitlement reform is all you need to know about their sincerity on deficits."

(Hit the blue inserted link for more good reading)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/0xx/doc2/E&b01-97.pdf

In case anyone's interested in the real thing instead of fluffy articles.

Storekeeper is lost again.

The Laffer curve was created on a bar-room napkin over drinks.

Lower taxes are good. But you also have to cut big spending. You said you supported "big government." Now you say you like Kennedy-esque supply-side.

You cannot have it both ways.

Lower taxes and increased spending = higher taxes than before. There's just no other way around it...unless you borrow yourself to death.

And the biggest increase in profits of all leading to those 'unexpected' increased revenues? You guessed it: oil and banks (as I demonstrated based on the DJIA 30 industrials: oil companies and banks are driving the profit stream...profits based on raping consumers).

Originally Posted by surasak

That's because all the new jobs are mainly healthcare desk clerks. And, incidentally, health care costs have skyrocketed since Bush took office.

That, AND- BushInc has labeled flipping burgers "manufacturing jobs".
Everyday is opposite day in Bushworld.
And of course that darned librul media always touting how good unions are and always going on and on about the fixing of facts for the Iraq war as reported in the Downing Street Minutes.

So how can I not buy the spin about how rosey the economy is? Afterall, the minimum wage has been held flat since 1997. Now it's the equivalent of $4.92/hr adjusted for COL.
Well - the stock market is soaring. Those idiotic working poor should just own corporations and stop whining about living indoors and eating food.
:sarcasm:

[quote]GAO Chief Warns Economic Disaster Looms


Oct 28, 12:32 PM (ET)

By MATT CRENSON

p {margin:12px 0px 0px 0px;}AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - David M. Walker sure talks like he's running for office. "This is about the future of our country, our kids and grandkids," the comptroller general of the United States warns a packed hall at Austin's historic Driskill Hotel. "We the people have to rise up to make sure things get changed."
But Walker doesn't want, or need, your vote this November. He already has a job as head of the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates the performance of the federal government.
Basically, that makes Walker the nation's accountant-in-chief. And the accountant-in-chief's professional opinion is that the American public needs to tell Washington it's time to steer the nation off the path to financial ruin.
From the hustings and the airwaves this campaign season, America's political class can be heard debating Capitol Hill sex scandals, the wisdom of the war in Iraq and which party is tougher on terror. Democrats and Republicans talk of cutting taxes to make life easier for the American people.
What they don't talk about is a dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows, or at least should. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree: The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it. There's a good reason politicians don't like to talk about the nation's long-term fiscal prospects. The subject is short on political theatrics and long on complicated economics, scary graphs and very big numbers. It reveals serious problems and offers no easy solutions. Anybody who wanted to deal with it seriously would have to talk about raising taxes and cutting benefits, nasty nostrums that might doom any candidate who prescribed them.


LInk: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061028/D8L1OC5G0.html

True conservatives would never be as fiscally irresponsible as the ones in charge now.

^ Agree.

The Conservatives have been pushed out.

They only exist on Op-Ed pages in the back of newspapers.

Originally Posted by surasak

That's because all the new jobs are mainly healthcare desk clerks. And, incidentally, health care costs have skyrocketed since Bush took office.

Yep...I'm sure it's all Dubya's fault as usual...

Hey smart guys ... How many years has the USA "Not" run a deficit since 1930 ?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by surasak

That's because all the new jobs are mainly healthcare desk clerks. And, incidentally, health care costs have skyrocketed since Bush took office.

Yep...I'm sure it's all Dubya's fault as usual...

You can blame GWB but it's really ambulance chasers like John Edwards who can claim direct blame for increased health care costs.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

You can blame GWB but it's really ambulance chasers like John Edwards who can claim direct blame for increased health care costs.

And the bleeding-heart liberals who embrace illegal aliens who, btw, cast their vote for the candidate from the party of cut & run...

I wonder, will there ever be a comment consisting of more than 2 lines winding other members up, Boner?

1163 to date...

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I'd love to know how you make your leaps from bringing welfare to Kitsap county to conservative ... and tie Norm Dicks to both.

A large percentage of the Kitsap economy is welfare:

Federal government jobs.

Is defense spending another form of welfare?

Originally Posted by surasak

Is defense spending another form of welfare?

I consider a lot - but not all - defense spending a form os welfare.

It's spending tax payer money to placate special interest groups:

*Pork dished out to district from Congressman on committes.

*Defense contractors (companies) that over-charge and defraud the U.S. government.

* Rallies the masses

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Hey smart guys ... How many years has the USA "Not" run a deficit since 1930 ?

I'd think a half decent Libertarian would be able to figure out this one. Can't google warrior the answer though.

I'll answer part of it for you ... 5 years between 1930 and 1960.

How about from 1960 to 1980 ?

How about from 1980 to 2005 ? (This one should be easy)