FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

[GePap]

Wait, so first the president has nothing to say about the economy, then he does?

I think the 2004 work numbers show the real story-remember that Bsuh remains the only president to preside over 4 years of net job losses- even daddy dealing with his recession created jobs over his four year precidency.

MOre importantly, unlike Daddy or Clinton, Bush 1 came into office and into a recession with a massive surplus- bush had the money to lessen the effects of the recession AND cut taxes for most people. He didn't do that. That is a failure of policy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

GePap, is there any reason you are deliberatly pulling a Fez (so to speak)?

[Japher]

Yes, yes... The Dems are souly to congratulate for the economic boom of the Ninties... Since Al Gore, DID invent the internet..

Clinton happened to be at a time of an emerging industry, lucky him. However, we shouldn't blame Bush for it's shortcomings.

I look at numbers and trends, and what I see is normal for an economy, and Bush had nothing to do with.

Granted, and I do believe, Bush can pay more attention to the state of the economy and to those who need help. However, status quo is occuring, and I don't see any reason to place "Blame" on someone for things remaining the same... especially when we are in the exact state of an economy that we were in just 5 years ago, and it was GREAT than, but AWFUL now... Please explain.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
GePap, is there any reason you are deliberatly pulling a Fez (so to speak)?

Have I insulted you, threatened to throw you from a chopper or anything else?

So posting the fact more people live in poverty today than before GWB took office is pulling a Fez?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

He's a little off his game of late. Just wait till the poll numbers start coming out to see the hysteria.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Have I insulted you, threatened to throw you from a chopper or anything else?

No, but you've deliberately avoided contrary facts and refuse to debate them because you have your own sacred facts and that's that, such as when you quoted yourself and left that as your post... before you DanS'd, of course.

Such as the fact that the late 90s were an aberration in terms of growth (the bubble was in full swing) and we are easing back into equilibrium. Instead you parrot the numbers and the increase and think they are horrible, when it actuality the numbers are quite good when you look at the historic number of people in poverty.

[Japher]

No, but you've deliberately avoided contrary facts and refuse to debate them because you have your own sacred facts and that's that, such as when you quoted yourself and left that as your post

In GePap's defense I think that was a x-post.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Have I insulted you, threatened to throw you from a chopper or anything else?

No, but you've deliberately avoided contrary facts and refuse to debate them because you have your own sacred facts and that's that, such as when you quoted yourself and left that as your post... before you DanS'd, of course.

Such as the fact that the late 90s were an aberration in terms of growth (the bubble was in full swing) and we are easing back into equilibrium. Instead you parrot the numbers and the increase and think they are horrible, when it actuality the numbers are quite good when you look at the historic number of people in poverty.

Maybe your studies of economics and law have blinded you to a simple fact- politics is about comparisons. Yes, compared to our times under the Reagan precidency, unemployment and poverty numbers are low, but compared to the previous four years things are not well- those four years of the Bush precidency.

As for the tiring "buble" arguement- yes, the stock market was in a bubble (thought would you say the hosuing market is currently in a bubble as well?) and that burst- BUT the government (which is what we are talking about here) came into this crisis with a huge store of funds it had gained during the bubble. Bush and his political allies are to blame for the missed opportunities in keeping poverty and unemployment numbers at historic lows- they didn't- they had other priorities.

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.

[Japher]

they had other priorities

Such as?

I do care about poverty numbers, becuase those numbers are about people

And his other priorities were not? War on Terror is not?

Perhapse we should just let the terrorist start killing off more Americans and hope that they just take out those in poverty.

Maybe your studies of economics and law have blinded you to a simple fact- politics is about comparisons. Yes, compared to our times under the Reagan precidency, unemployment and poverty numbers are low, but compared to the previous four years things are not well- those four years of the Bush precidency.

So, all you have to say about the economic COMPARISON of a recovering economy that I presented is that "I want to bash Bush so those numbers mean nothing"?

[Arrian]

Such as?

Tax cuts, and added military expenditure (WoT, Iraq II).

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Poverty numbers are irrelevant.

Not if you're newly poor.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
Such as?

Anti-Tax orthodoxy

And his other priorities were not? War on Terror is not?

The war on terror has cost peanuts compared to his other policies: especially the tax cuts and the war in iraq. So keeping poverty low would have cost very little compared to his tax cuts to the rich.

Perhapse we should just let the terrorist start killing off more Americans and hope that they just take out those in poverty.

So, all you have to say about the economic COMPARISON of a recovering economy that I presented is that "I want to bash Bush so those numbers mean nothing"?

Do you not accept the fact more people live in poverty today than the day Bush took office? Or that less people work? Talk about ignoring facts.

[Japher]

Tax cuts, and added military expenditure (WoT, Iraq II).

Where they necessary?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher


Where they necessary?

The tax cuts or the war in Iraq? Not necessities.

[DinoDoc]

Is GePap going to try and shout down another poster?