FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, that's nice, but GDP is the gross domestic product. That determines if the economy is doing better. You could have less poverty numbers, but the economy could still be in the ****ter. However, with a rise in GDP, the economy, by definition, gets better. So nominal poverty numbers are irrelevant to determine if the economy is better. GDP is the number to look at.

I thought the economy was there to help people, not the other way around. It's remarkable to see today that Economy = God for certain people I know. You might have more money in total, but if that money is not reasonably divided amongst the population that means nothing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
Your the one who wants comparisons. I show you a comparison of post post-recession economies and you just blow it off. Obviously you care not for the facts, and are being very shortsighted on the issue.

Let me simplify what is relevant and what is nbot politically.

Today most people are not subsistance farmers anymore-that simple macro-economic changes. To say that our great leader today is great becuase people are not subsistance farmers like they were back in 1700 is a non-sensical comparison.

Your basic point seems to be that poverty numbers were higher in the 1991 recession than today- fine, wich would matter if it were not for the fact we had 10 years of economic changes in the interim. People don;t care if the base unemployment rate in 1985 was much higher than that of 2003- they care the rate in 2003 was higher than in 1999. That is what matters- remember what Reagan said, when he made this question in 1984, "are you better off today than you were 4 years ago". Do you think he would have asked "are you better of today than in 1970?" You know why? Cause he wasn't president since 1970.

So, are we better of today than in 2000? That is the question.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Japher


"Restructuring"

I prefer "organizational re-alignment to provide better overall synergies"

[Sava]

This isn't just about Bush. In the highest levels of government, we need to have a serious discussion about economic policies... who they should be tailored for, and who should have the best chance to build wealth. Bush is definitely part of the problem, but the problem won't go away with him after the election.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Vote for team Arrian for real change






in Ogie's pocket that is

[Sava]

I'd vote for Arrian.

[Japher]

Sava

Today most people are not subsistance farmers anymore-that simple macro-economic changes. To say that our great leader today is great becuase people are not subsistance farmers like they were back in 1700 is a non-sensical comparison.

And noone is saying that, so stopping putting words into ppl's mouths.

Your basic point seems to be that poverty numbers were higher in the 1991 recession than today- fine, wich would matter if it were not for the fact we had 10 years of economic changes in the interim.

No, my point is that after a recession ends there are years following in which poverty spikes. It occured then and it is occuring now, and no economic reform that I have seen has changed that.

People don;t care if the base unemployment rate in 1985 was much higher than that of 2003

I am not arguing about what "the people" care about or what "they see". They are idiots. What I am arguing is that as an informed individual you cannot possibly hold Bush entirely responsible for a) the recession and b) the levels on poverity which has since occured. It is economic FACT, not opinion, that this occurs.

And stop looking at my comparisons to mean 1970, 1700, or any other year. They are comparissons between two economies which are VERY much the same and very much closer in time. What occured after 1991 is EXACTLY what is occuring now.

So, are we better of today than in 2000? That is the question.

Not according to the polls.

[Velociryx]

Or for Vel's Gridlock Campaign!

IMO, arguing for or against Bush's economic policies is a waste of time.

The guy's a moron. Why should we expect his policies to be anything other than a reflection of self.

Likewise, comparisons between Bush and Kerry are a waste of time. They both suck. That's like asking "which is better to have in your back yard...a toxic waste dump or "newclear" reactor with a ruptured core?



-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Vote for team Arrian for real change

in Ogie's pocket that is

I am a river to my people.

Remember, though, I need Guy onboard. Gotta have more cowbell! Without that, the campaign is doomed.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Tough one but I'm gonna say the toxic waste one is better, at least you don't have to contend with the glow keeping you up all night.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Velociryx
That's like asking "which is better to have in your back yard...a toxic waste dump or "newclear" reactor with a ruptured core?



-=Vel=-

no, it's nukewler

[Japher]

I'd go with the reactor in hopes that I grow an extra arm or gain some sort of superpowers.

[Arrian]

Toxic waste wins easily, yeah. We actually know how to clean that up. Nucular waste is one of those things we just try to seal up with lots and lots and lots of concrete and hope it stays where we put it. For a loooong time.

Damnit. That's the job talkin, sorry.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

thanks Sava...I stand corrected!

as a less-than-wise-man once said....

"fool me once....shame on.....shame on you....fool me twice....I ghe .....y...you can't get fooled again!"



-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
No, my point is that after a recession ends there are years following in which poverty spikes. It occured then and it is occuring now, and no economic reform that I have seen has changed that.

Except unlike previous recessions, we were going in with a massive government curplus, meaning the state for once had the money to do something about it. We didn't do it. That was Bush's decision.

I am not arguing about what "the people" care about or what "they see". They are idiots. What I am arguing is that as an informed individual you cannot possibly hold Bush entirely responsible for a) the recession and b) the levels on poverity which has since occured. It is economic FACT, not opinion, that this occurs.

I don't hold Bush responsible for the recession- I hold him responsible for the "recovery" and for undertaking government policies that did not do much at all to help invidials at a time the Federal government had a golden opportunity it never really had before.

And stop looking at my comparisons to mean 1970, 1700, or any other year. They are comparissons between two economies which are VERY much the same and very much closer in time. What occured after 1991 is EXACTLY what is occuring now.

Except in 1991 and throughout the government was running massive deficits already. In 2000 we had massive surpluses with which something could have been done- that recession we had an 9/11 were in no way responsible for going from record surpluses to record deficits.

Not according to the polls.

Not one single poll says people today think we are better off than four years ago- the vast mayority of Bush's support come from people who support him in cultural issues or on his foreign policy- only fools support him for his economic stewardship.