FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

[Velociryx]

Good answers, all 'round on the waste dump/reactor question.

Sadly, of course, the best answer would be "neither" just like it is when contemplating the question of Bush/Kerry.

My choice...I'd rather have neither of them, and honestly, I don't think we can GET into much more shallow water in the ol' gene pool.

In fact, based on this election's crop of presidential hopefuls, I'm ALL FOR putting healthy doses of chlorine into said gene pool....clean it up a little. Maybe then we can get some REAL candidates.

Somebody who's got a real handle on the issues relevant to the times.

Like the need for more cowbell....

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Who doesn't answer to Bush, and who wasn't even appointed by Bush... How does Greenspan sucking = Bush sucking?

He was reappointed by Bush before the latest rate increase. Bush should have let him go and appointed someone new.

Ignited by both Dems and Repugs alike.

Yeah, they both suck. It was Bush's initiative. The Democrats just rolled over and pissed on themselves, opportunistically think that it wasn't good to stand up to the Prez on that and that they'd have the next two months of campaign time to hammer Bush on the economy. It back fired by so disgusting their base that they refused to turn out to vote.

[Japher]

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.

That's exactly what I said.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
That's exactly what I said.

You essentially say he has no effect- he does have an effect insofar as how government policy helps.

Look at this Clinton numbers:
The average household income barely changed at all- so while what the normal household earned remain fairly constant, poverty declined. You know what? That drop in poverty had to come from somewhere other than people getting dividends from their 401K (since that is the real source of most stock ownership in the US).

[Japher]

You know what? That drop in poverty had to come from somewhere other than people getting dividends from their 401K

Tech boom... Do the words economic cycle mean anything to you? Or are you going to accredit that to gov. policy?

[GePap]

"Tech boom"?

Right, cause the people on the bottom of the scale coming out of the poverty line were being hired as software developers....and a million secretaries for the new offices.....

Tech boom is fine for the stock numbers, but if you note, stocks rose in 2003, but so did poverty. Also,

[David Floyd]

Now, you said outright you don;t care about poverty numbers -fine by me, but I do care about poverty numbers, becuase those numbers are about people, unlike GDP numbers, which simply consider things, not human beings.

Good - you donate to the poor, and have fun doing it. I'll look at the GDP, and tell them to get a job

[Japher]

Right, cause the people on the bottom of the scale coming out of the poverty line were being hired as software developers....and a million secretaries for the new offices.....

Those ppl were being hired to build the facilities in which the techs were made, to make the actual techs (oh yes), to pave the roads that went to these building, to build the cars that those wealthy people drove from the houses they built, and grew the food that they ate, and served it to them, on napkins the washed so that it wouldn't get on the new clothes that they wore...

Don't be so narrow minded man.

When stocks rise with poverty levels that is because productivity is increasing (something that the president does not control). This did not occur in the 1990s... obviously.

According to the ILO:

There is a close relationship between poverty and the informal economy in most countries, although not all informal operators or workers are poor. But holding a job in the formal economy does not always guarantee that one escapes from poverty. Nevertheless, the informalization of the economy in many countries through outsourcing, expansion of global value chains and casualization of the workforce most often are linked to increased vulnerability and poverty.

Outsourcing?!

Still, poverty is equatable with economic growth.

What creates economic growth are billions of decisions all over the world, made according to a timeline that only vaguely coincides with the political calendar.

Interesting Article explaing how it is not the president that determines economic swings, nor poverty levels...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher


Those ppl were being hired to build the facilities in which the techs were made, to make the actual techs (oh yes), to pave the roads that went to these building, to build the cars that those wealthy people drove from the houses they built, and grew the food that they ate, and served it to them, on napkins the washed so that it wouldn't get on the new clothes that they wore...

Don't be so narrow minded man.

When stocks rise with poverty levels that is because productivity is increasing (something that the president does not control). This did not occur in the 1990s... obviously.

Only if stock prices have some correlation to reality (the meaning of a bubble being prices that are inflated well beyond the facts on the ground). You could have a bubble in prices without any effects on poverty.

I think the last "recovery" is informative- while GDP has rebounded, employment has not to anywhere the same degree-that makes this recovery different from that in 1992-3. As I said, Bush 2 is still at a net job loss, unlike poppa Bush. Maybe he has nothing to do with that, maybe he does- but what we know for certain he does have to bear responsibility for is failing to provide aide to states in order to avoid massive cuts to aide budgets that have hurt millions of families terribly, cause he found tax cuts for the rich more important a priority.

[Japher]

but what we know for certain he does have to bear responsibility for is failing to provide aide to states in order to avoid massive cuts to aide budgets that have hurt millions of families terribly, cause he found tax cuts for the rich more important a priority

I agree, and he should address jobs being sent over seas as well. He IS ignoring the financial stability of the American people.

[Ming]

One of the basic differences in the two parties is that the Democrats want to redistribute the wealth by stealing from the rich to give to the poor, and the Republicans don't want to do that. So you are welcome to your continued outrage, and your desire to move our country to more of a socialist state, but some of us don't see that as the way to go.

And again, before you lay out your normal guilt trips... I personally give money to charities that help people improve their situations in life, and give my free time to help poor disadvantaged kids survive school and to help them make something out of their lives. I personally think the current welfare system is a joke, and is money poorly spent. More taxes isn't the answer. Better programs and people who WILLINGLY give their time and money to such causes is far more effective.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ming
More taxes isn't the answer. Better programs and people who WILLINGLY give their time and money to such causes is far more effective.

Or cowbell!!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ming
One of the basic differences in the two parties is that the Democrats want to redistribute the wealth by stealing from the rich to give to the poor, and the Republicans don't want to do that. So you are welcome to your continued outrage, and your desire to move our country to more of a socialist state, but some of us don't see that as the way to go.

And again, before you lay out your normal guilt trips... I personally give money to charities that help people improve their situations in life, and give my free time to help poor disadvantaged kids survive school and to help them make something out of their lives. I personally think the current welfare system is a joke, and is money poorly spent. More taxes isn't the answer. Better programs and people who WILLINGLY give their time and money to such causes is far more effective.

mmmmmm I think you are taking that to an extreme. Democrats want stable, productive social services. But yes, they do believe in progressive taxation. Progressive taxation isn't some commie pipe dream. It is an American value that arose during the "progressive" era in American history. Personally, I think Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin FDR (as two of the most prominent progressive thinkers in American history) had the right idea.

Personally, I don't understand how anyone can disagree with the notion of using tax money to fund education and health care. And since the strong usually protect the weak in society, the "strongest" individuals when it comes to wealth and productivity need to have more of the burden. In such a system, more people are able to build wealth, and hence, more people become "rich", and therefore the burden is spread out.

The middle class exists because of Progressive thinking. Do you really long for the days when there was only a working class and a rich elite? I just don't understand why anyone would think that kind of social system is better.

Wealth distribution exists no matter what tax policies or market policies exist. It's just a matter of who controls the distribution of wealth, and who it benefits. Now, do you want a democratic process controlling it? Or private interests? Personally, I like Democracy and the idea of a democratic society engineering policies that benefit the largest possible group of people.

[Whoha]

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

*Doctor walks in*
"you have terminal cancer."

[Imran Siddiqui]

why in the hell would you use the phrase "turned the corner"?

Look at GDP numbers and their growth.

He was reappointed by Bush before the latest rate increase. Bush should have let him go and appointed someone new.

Yeah, that would have worked. There were rumblings that he was going to replace Greenspan and the Dems almost went off their rocker. I can imagine what would have happened if Bush replaced the "Economic God of the 90s" as a ton of people were calling him back then.