economy on the rise

[strandinthewind]

Interesting take on the economy. BTW Dissention and Goldie - please note that Kerry's people concede Bush was handed a slowing economy and 9/11 has a dramtic effect on the economy. Thus, I was right and you were wrong But, that does not excuse W's free spending liberal fiscal policy IMO
______________________________________________________________

Kerry Opens 2-Week Drive on the Economy

June 15, 2004
By ROBIN TONER

ATLANTIC CITY, June 14 - Senator John Kerry served notice Monday that he still considered the economy a central vulnerability for President Bush despite strong employment growth in recent months.

Beginning a two-week focus on the economy, officials with the Democratic challenger's campaign argued that Mr. Bush's record should be judged on his entire tenure, not on the turnaround of the past few months.

"If you get D-minuses for three and a half years in college, one semester of a B-minus does not get you on the honor roll," said Gene Sperling, who was a top economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and is now advising Mr. Kerry.

"Our economy doesn't recover after three and a half extremely weak years of job creation with just a few positive months,'' Mr. Sperling added.

Moreover, the Kerry campaign asserted, the quality of many of those new jobs, the shift to employment in lower-paying industries with scanty benefits and the pressures of rising health, education and energy costs have combined to create an increasingly strained middle class. The campaign issued a report Monday indicating that 1.6 million households filed for bankruptcy in 2003, up a third from 2000.

Bush campaign officials fired back, with a spokesman, Steve Schmidt, mocking Mr. Kerry for "his pessimism and misery tour.''

"Senator Kerry ignores the good economic news,'' Mr. Schmidt added, "and plays to people's fears and anxieties."


But Mr. Kerry, signaling the themes of the next few weeks, suggested that it was Mr. Bush who was out of touch. Landing here in Atlantic City to attend a fund-raising reception Monday night and then speak to the New Jersey A.F.L.-C.I.O. on Tuesday, he declared, "We're here to make sure that Americans get a job where if you work, and work hard, you can actually pay your bills at the end of the day."

"I've met parents all over this country who are struggling to be able to send their kids to school,'' he added. "Where 20 years ago one job allowed them to send their kid to college, now two barely does it."

Mark Mellman, the Kerry campaign's pollster, said voters overwhelmingly agreed with this more sober assessment of the economy, in several recent polls giving Mr. Bush decidedly poor ratings on his economic stewardship. Mr. Mellman said that voters felt besieged by rising prices and that they expected interest rates to rise soon and make their household budgets even worse.

The Kerry campaign officials brushed aside any notion that they would be perceived as this year's version of what Republicans have sometimes called "doom and gloom" Democrats. The Kerry aides said this was a year very different from 1984 and 1988, when such depictions proved effective against the Democratic nominees, Walter F. Mondale and Michael S. Dukakis.

In general, Kerry advisers, buoyed by recent polls showing a tight race and continued problems for Mr. Bush, projected a decidedly bullish air at a briefing for the press in Washington on Monday. Mary Beth Cahill, Mr. Kerry's campaign manager, described Mr. Bush as "a rudderless incumbent" who had engaged in a campaign of negative ads rather than positive proposals for the future, a calculation that Kerry advisers argue will ultimately be proved decisively wrong.

Tad Devine, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, declared, "I think it's fair to say that John Kerry won the spring general election, and I think he won it decisively."

Mr. Kerry is expected to take his economic argument this week to Ohio and Michigan, in a region achingly sensitive to the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs.

Mr. Sperling conceded at the briefing Monday that Mr. Bush was not entirely to blame for the economic troubles of the past three and a half years.

"No question, George Bush had a couple of bad breaks on his watch,'' Mr. Sperling said, "most specifically 9/11 and the slowing economy of 2001. But he also inherited 4.1 percent unemployment, a doubling of productivity, the strongest fiscal situation in our country, and he had a Congress that three different times did what he wanted'' on tax and economic policy.

The two economic views clashed throughout the day. Even as the Kerry campaign was briefing, the Commerce Department was hailing "strong" retail sales growth in May. Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans declared, "More Americans are going on spending sprees at shopping malls as more people are finding well-paying jobs" thanks to "President Bush's leadership."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/po...cecb50126816e4

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

BTW Dissention and Goldie - please note that Kerry's people concede Bush was handed a slowing economy and 9/11 has a dramtic effect on the economy. Thus, I was right and you were wrong

He was handed a slowing economy, not an economy in a recession, as you so readily would have people believe. Regardless of what you say, the recession did not start until he was already in office for a few months.

So, we were right, you were wrong.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

He was handed a slowing economy, not an economy in a recession, as you so readily would have people believe. Regardless of what you say, the recession did not start until he was already in office for a few months.

So, we were right, you were wrong.

Spin, Spin, Spin - To my knowledge, the Bush WH has never said the economy was in a recession when they took office. DC said they were at the beginning of one, which was true and that means part of it was Clinton's "fault" (I use the quotes because I think the economy can be directed, but is inherently cyclical no matter who is the Pres.). Moreover, I have always said the actual textbook recession did not occur until we were in the Bush Presidency. What I said was the economy was on its way into it when W took office - in other words, the economy was no going full speed ahead until the very day W took office and then immediately after the swearing in, it tanked This article backs up what I said - please correct me if I am wrong.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Spin, Spin, Spin - To my knowledge, the Bush WH has never said the economy was in a recession when they took office. DC said they were at the beginning of one, which was true and that means part of it was Clinton's "fault" (I use the quotes because I think the economy can be directed, but is inherently cyclical no matter who is the Pres.). Moreover, I have always said the actual textbook recession did not occur until we were in the Bush Presidency. What I said was the economy was on its way into it when W took office - in other words, the economy was no going full speed ahead until the very day W took office and then immediately after the swearing in, it tanked This article backs up what I said - please correct me if I am wrong.

I wasn't talking about what Bush said, I was talking about you've said hundreds, if not thousands, of times. You've always stated that we were in a recession when Bush took office, and that is patently false. The recession did not take place until March of 2001. Methinks you're the one spinning. Shall I go wade through the millions of threads and quote you? You know I will.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I wasn't talking about what Bush said, I was talking about you've said hundreds, if not thousands, of times. You've always stated that we were in a recession when Bush took office, and that is patently false. The recession did not take place until March of 2001. Methinks you're the one spinning. Shall I go wade through the millions of threads and quote you? You know I will.

Save yourself the time, if I ever said we were in a techinical recession when W took office I herein withdraw and retract that statement. I was wrong to say that - period.

What I meant to say, and I think the full quoting of me will support this, is that the economy was on its way down and into a technical recession in 2001 way before W took office - recessions just do not happen over night and I hardly think anything W did in his first three months of office caused it. So, I am glad we are in agreement on that. So, the next time you say the recession was all W's fault and Clinton handed W a peachy and rosey economic picture that automatically failed three months later I will pleasantly remind you that you once agreed with Kerry's advisor and me that the ecnomy was in trouble when W started office.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, the next time you say the recession was all W's fault and Clinton handed W a peachy and rosey economic picture that automatically failed three months later I will pleasantly remind you that you once agreed with Kerry's advisor and me that the ecnomy was in trouble when W started office.

Ah, but I've never said that and you can go searching through my posts if you must to prove it.

The economy wasn't in the greatest of shape in Clinton's last year of office, I've always admitted that. What I've said about Bush and his watch is that they screwed it up even worse with their terrible policies. Did 9/11 harm it? Of course it did. Should ChimpCo have continued to push more tax cuts after 9/11 and during wartime? F*CK NO! I have not, nor will I ever, believe in voodoo economics. It doesn't work.

Now, while we sit here and argue back and forth, let's put something into perspective: normal, regular Americans are not seeing the fruits of this supposedly "improving economy." They aren't. They're still busting their asses, holding down two or three jobs, watching their property taxes increase (along with their utility bills), it's just the same old-same old for them. So, while the Faux News can paint a pretty picture about how the Great White Savior of Humanity has turned our economy around, there these people sit, on their couches, tired and broke, at their wits end. Life isn't any easier for them and you can rest assured that they will take out that frustration at the polls.

Also, and quite ironically, one of the factories in Michigan where Bush held a fundraiser last month and touted the improving economy, has just closed down. Leaving everyone out of jobs. Food for thought.

[strandinthewind]

I am glad we agree!!!

I also agree most people who lost their jobs have not replaced it and cannot replace it with one that pays as much. I think, however, with a little luck and if these last two quarters of growth continue, that will change. I certainly hope it does

Far more interesting, IMO is what we are going to do about the deficit created by the de-tax and freely spend ( ) so called conservative we have in there now

BTW - it is not just Fox News. All news is reporting the economy is getting stronger. But, you all can never admit that because to do so would be to give W credit, which can never happen in the far liberal midset just as the far conservative mindset cannot ever give any D credit for anything

Finally, if the economy is recovering, then W's tax cuts have worked - if not, what is alternate explanation?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Finally, if the economy is recovering, then W's tax cuts have worked - if not, what is alternate explanation?

Show me some proof that they have worked and not speculation. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that there really is no way of saying that tax cuts stimlulate the economy; it's nothing more than a theory and it's shaky at best.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Show me some proof that they have worked and not speculation. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that there really is no way of saying that tax cuts stimlulate the economy; it's nothing more than a theory and it's shaky at best.

LOL - in law this is called res ipsa loquitor or the thing speaks for itself. On the one hand, we have a significant number of people who do not have jobs because they were fired, laid off, etc. and that if they have a new job, it is not paying as much as the old job. On the other hand, spending is up and showing record growth - as indicated by the last two economic reports. So, the money must be coming from somewhere. If it is not coming from the tax cuts, then where is it coming from So, the logical conclusion is the money is coming at least in part from people having more money from the tax cuts. In fact, to suggest none of it is ignores economic theory and IMO reality

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

LOL - in law this is called res ipsa loquitor or the thing speaks for itself. On the one hand, we have a significant number of people who do not have jobs because they were fired, laid off, etc. and that if they have a new job, it is not paying as much as the old job. On the other hand, spending is up and showing record growth - as indicated by the last two economic reports. So, the money must be coming from somewhere. If it is not coming from the tax cuts, then where is it coming from So, the logical conclusion is the money is coming at least in part from people having more money from the tax cuts. In fact, to suggest none of it is ignores economic theory and IMO reality

Geez, you think in only black and white, babe.

Tax cuts are band-aid's, Jason, they have no lasting effect, therefore they are rendered useless. Don't you get it? The onyl reason they are being pushed is because they know stupid people are going to see the words "tax cut" and automatically think "Ooh, more money for me! I LIKE this guy!"

ChimpCo's ridiculous stimulus package has not created the jobs they claimed it would. Not surprisingly, the jobs that they have regained pay not ONLY lower wages, but ALSO give less benefits and lower quality health insurance.

Here's another good point:

If ChimpCo hadn't been ideologically driven toward high-end tax cuts, it might have taken some important steps with the money instead. Rather than cutting taxes primarily for wealthy families, we could have financed substantial aid to the states, which would have obviated the need for recession-driven tuition increases and spending cutbacks. We could have invested heavily in children, for example, by fully funding Head Start. We could have provided more progressive tax cuts. Or we could have done all three -- and still had money left over to reduce the deficit!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interesting take on the economy. BTW Dissention and Goldie - please note that Kerry's people concede Bush was handed a slowing economy and 9/11 has a dramtic effect on the economy. Thus, I was right and you were wrong But, that does not excuse W's free spending liberal fiscal policy IMO
______________________________________________________________



"No question, George Bush had a couple of bad breaks on his watch,'' Mr. Sperling said, "most specifically 9/11 and the slowing economy of 2001. But he also inherited 4.1 percent unemployment, a doubling of productivity, the strongest fiscal situation in our country, and he had a Congress that three different times did what he wanted'' on tax and economic policy.

Nice try. Heard Cheney's still out there giving speeches about a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida.
Consumer spending is down and the PPI is being held back because "it can't be accurately calculated" at this time. Can you say cook the books? The "jobs" being created are either government jobs, driving empty trucks across the desert for Halliburton or low paying jobs.
As for 9/11, well Bush benefitted from that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Geez, you think in only black and white, babe.

Tax cuts are band-aid's, Jason, they have no lasting effect, therefore they are rendered useless. Don't you get it? The onyl reason they are being pushed is because they know stupid people are going to see the words "tax cut" and automatically think "Ooh, more money for me! I LIKE this guy!"

ChimpCo's ridiculous stimulus package has not created the jobs they claimed it would. Not surprisingly, the jobs that they have regained pay not ONLY lower wages, but ALSO give less benefits and lower quality health insurance.

Here's another good point:

If ChimpCo hadn't been ideologically driven toward high-end tax cuts, it might have taken some important steps with the money instead. Rather than cutting taxes primarily for wealthy families, we could have financed substantial aid to the states, which would have obviated the need for recession-driven tuition increases and spending cutbacks. We could have invested heavily in children, for example, by fully funding Head Start. We could have provided more progressive tax cuts. Or we could have done all three -- and still had money left over to reduce the deficit!

and once again I ask - where is the money coming from that is driving this recovery if not from the horrific tax cuts?

BTW - I agree with you the tax cuts W offered as a whole were ill conceived. I would have done them differently - but not much in the way of personal income tax. But and again, they apparently are having some effect on the economy. Otherwise, and for the tird time - where is the money coming from? (Persistent little bastard aren't I )

Finally, you assert this band aid theory as if it is gospel when you know good and well that no one can prove that and by your own words in another thread, for every economist that says the trickle down effect of tax cuts does not work, there is one that says it works. IMO - it makes sense that if people have more money, they are going to spend it and that is what is happening now.

In fact, here is the post

Quote:
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
Could W have done something to stop the faltering economy? Well, he treid with the tax cuts. Have they worked? Well, the economy is currently moving on full steam ahead.


[Dissention] Voodoo economics do not work, IMO. But, to be fair and because I have a soft spot for ya, there are no conclusive studies that prove they do or they don't. For every study or analysis that says it does, there's another out there that says it doesn't.

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/sh...ghlight=voodoo

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

What I said was the economy was on its way into it when W took office - in other words, the economy was no going full speed ahead until the very day W took office and then immediately after the swearing in, it tanked This article backs up what I said - please correct me if I am wrong.

The stock market dumped in December about three days after the Supremes made their decision. The effect of it was so tangible-like a gigantic asteriod smashing into a puddle. There was a definite loss of confidence.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

The stock market dumped in December about three days after the Supremes made their decision. The effect of it was so tangible-like a gigantic asteriod smashing into a puddle. There was a definite loss of confidence.

While that is true, the market had been on shaky ground way before that - trust me because I speak on a personal level there - can you say OUCH!!!! Moreover, if W is so pro big business, big oil, etc. and anti environment (environmental restraints cost corps. $$$$), etc., why would the stock market be so opposed to him?

My point is the economy was on its way into the toilet when Clinton left office and the quote from Kerry's advisor supports that

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Show me some proof that they have worked and not speculation. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that there really is no way of saying that tax cuts stimlulate the economy; it's nothing more than a theory and it's shaky at best.

Economists are predicting that this little spark we have seen lately will go out by the third quarter this year.