Stocks up, consumer spending down; Is Bush plan working?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They've predicted 10 of the last 5 recessions.

wait, what?

[Victor Galis]

But he did get a MBA though.. and what did he get at Harvard? I am not too clear about this.. I am more familiar with my own country's politics to be honest.

-Yeah, but at some universities in this country, given what grade inflation has done to the system, the only really hard part is getting in.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sava
sigh... whatever...

any other pro-Bushies care to debate this with me?

You have got too many Nobel prizes on your side, and I hate embarassing Nobel prizes

[Sava]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


You have got too many Nobel prizes on your side, and I hate embarassing Nobel prizes

I know... doesn't it suck when people who are actually qualified of making effective economic policy totally shoot down a policy?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sava
I know... doesn't it suck when people who are actually qualified of making effective economic policy totally shoot down a policy?

I am sorry to tell you that you missed the point. Since the dogma of infallibility as been imported from Rome, the US president needs no longer to rely on competences always fallible, he knows from personnal intuition what are the right things to do. This is why it is useless to ask him to justify his decisions seriously.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I am sorry to tell you that you missed the point.

Yeah, I did. It certainly isn't the first time I've done so

Since the dogma of infallibility as been imported from Rome, the US president needs no longer to rely on competences always fallible, he knows from personnal intuition what are the right things to do. This is why it is useless to ask him to justify his decisions seriously.

I agree with this 100%. For American Democracy to function better, I think we need to start putting competent people in positions of power, rather than self-serving, corporate-funded politicians.

[Q Classic]

george will had a very perceptive column on the bush tax cut working politically for the conservatives.

i tend to agree. putting money back in the hands of a decent-sized chunk of people, including many of those who can bankroll the future elections (not that bush'll need it, he's got a 120million war chest or so), particularly in a time of economic woes makes people like you.

any suggestion of fixing a lot of the problems in america that the democrats have, when forced to explain how they're going to pay for it, will have to make the probably suicidal admission that they'll have to raise taxes... giving even more strength to the conservative allegation that democrats are tax-and-spend liberals, which the sheep will believe.

besides, if the economy does recover, he can say it was his plan. if it doesn't, and we find that we have a financial disaster with the deficit a few years down the line, he'll be out of power.

politically, it's a winning deal for him.

and like all politicians, he doesn't give a damn about what's actually good for the people. just what's good politically.

[Sava]

Q Cubed - Government revenue increases without an increase in rates if the businesses and individuals in question make more money. An increase in income and profits equals an increase in tax revenue without an increase in rates.

The problem with Bush is that he's put Democrats to shame when it comes to increased spending and large government.

[Q Classic]

sava, i'm aware of that, the first bit, anyway.

if the economy recovers, naturally we'll do better with taxes (greater earnings), but he won't spin it that way. he'll spin it and say that the economy got better because of his plan...
and if it doesnt, and revenues continue to shrink, and we do end up in a financial pickle, he'll be out of power and it won't matter what he did.

as for the second bit, one can say that and shout it from the hills. that won't change the notion that most of the sheep in america that conservatives == small gov't, low taxes, big business and that liberals == big gov't, high taxes, and welfare.

[Sava]

as for the second bit, one can say that and shout it from the hills. that won't change the notion that most of the sheep in america that conservatives == small gov't, low taxes, big business and that liberals == big gov't, high taxes, and welfare.

this is a systemic problem that has to do with media and education... it can be solved. But it's unlikely that it will.

[Kidlicious]

I don't think just avoiding a recession will save Bush though. There would have to be a great boom to save him. He doesn't have the carisma of Ronald Reagan. He only beat Gore, because people believed he was something of a moderate.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think just avoiding a recession will save Bush though. There would have to be a great boom to save him.

I agree. "It's the economy, stupid!"

He doesn't have the carisma of Ronald Reagan. He only beat Gore, because people believed he was something of a moderate.

The circumstances surrounding Bush's election "victory" are well-known and I'll avoid mucking up this thread with that discussion. Fact is, Bush has lied about nearly every single platform he ran on.

Economic prosperity? HAHAHA
Isolationist foreign policy? HAHAHA
Improved education? AHAHHAH
Improved quality of health-care? AHAHAHAHAH

The only question is, will the Democrats be effective in pointing out his faults enough for people to stop their blind flag-waving.

[Giancarlo]

I think you are wrong Kidicious, Bush will beat whatever democratic candidate appears in 2004. Whatever one out of the 9 or 10. The democratic party is in a complete mess.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Fez
The democratic party is in a complete mess.

As it was in 1992

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
As it was in 1992

Actually this is going to be a 1983. A landslide victory for Bush. It only makes sense.