Sorry...

[Kingpin1989]

I am very sorry, but I must speak my mind. I am a supporter of President Bush and I would like to say a bit. Many Kerry supporters have argued that we as America have lost more jobs in the term of Bush than in any other presidency. Well, you have to consider the fact that the Bush administration had to deal with 9/11, and that absolutely CRUSHED the stock market and the general economy plunged, therefore due to the business cycle the major corperations started to lay people off. They have to be careful in business, otherwise they end up on the street. So the economy (which was already dropping during Clinton's idiocy) took an even deeper plunge.

[Aardvark]

[b'] Many Kerry supporters have argued that we as America have lost more jobs in the term of Bush than in any other presidency. [/b]

 

I don't know the exact figures but i'd guess a lot more jobs have been lost under other Presidents. Herbert Hoover and the start of the depression would have seen more job losses surely?

[MolecularMan14]

I must say, that I sincerely disagree with Kerry's Iran Plan...give them nuclear fuel?! To "test" and enforce their "peaceful nuclear aspirations"!? Did we learn nothing from N. Korea?!

At this point, Im an indifferent, but my opinion this election isn't worth spit. But in four years, I will hope that there will a better selection

[Mad Mardigan]

Well since Gore supporters claim Bush never won, he should be able to run for a third term.

 

Couple of educational films to watch...

 

http://madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=3126

http://davechase.net/presidential_horror_show.swf

[Douglas]

I don't know the exact figures but i'd guess a lot more jobs have been lost under other Presidents. Herbert Hoover and the start of the depression would have seen more job losses surely?

As a percentage of the total work force, I agree.

 

Words like "most lost jobs", "highest deficit in history", need to be referenced.

[budullewraagh]

the fact of the matter is that presidents dont lose jobs. the last one was hoover and that led to the great depression. "highest deficit in history" is accurate as well;

http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/JustForTheRecord.htm

[AL]

Highest unadjusted deficit maybe. But as a percentage of GDP, the deficit is not at a historical high. Personally though I think the more meaningful measure would be deficit as a percentage of taxable GDP, as this would to some extent give us some measure of our government's ability to pay it off.

[Aardvark]

the fact of the matter is that presidents dont lose jobs. the last one was hoover and that led to the great depression. "highest deficit in history" is accurate as well;

[i

 

Presidents don't lose jobs? The unemployment rate rose under Presidents Eisenhower, Truman, Nixon and Ford.

 

http://www.forbes.com/home/commerce/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html

 

And as a percentage of GDP the deficit is 3.6%. It's been higher than that before.

[budullewraagh]

i see. so, he isn't QUITE the worst president in your minds and so he's worthy of reelection??

[Aardvark]

Simply, that if you are going to criticism him try to do so honestly.

[budullewraagh]

oh, i've been completely honest. i just tried viewing things from a conservative perspective. it seems to be that the thought of him being, say, the SECOND worst president in history is enough for us to reelect him. am i correct?

[john5746]

[b']I am very sorry, but I must speak my mind. I am a supporter of President Bush and I would like to say a bit. Many Kerry supporters have argued that we as America have lost more jobs in the term of Bush than in any other presidency. Well, you have to consider the fact that the Bush administration had to deal with 9/11, and that absolutely CRUSHED the stock market and the general economy plunged, therefore due to the business cycle the major corperations started to lay people off. They have to be careful in business, otherwise they end up on the street. So the economy (which was already dropping during Clinton's idiocy) took an even deeper plunge.[/b]

 

I don't blame Bush for the terrible job market in 2002. I do blame him for not extending unemployment benefits. Yes, like the gun ban, he said he supported it, but he didn't push for the democrat's idea, which was a real extension.

 

He manages to run up huge deficits, give tax breaks especially to the wealthy, but can't get help to the unemployed during one of the worst job markets? Compassionate conservatism my A**

[Pangloss]

Smart man. I'm not sure the benefits really warranted extending, but if you're going to give a tax break, it seems like a logical thing to do. Isn't temporary assistance the whole point of welfare? Wasn't that the whole point of "welfare to work"? Have Republicans forgotten the biggest success of the "Contract with America"?

[Pangloss]

Hey look what I found! It's the Terry McAuliffe version of budullewraagh's chart!

 

[Sayonara]

Highest unadjusted deficit maybe. But as a percentage of GDP, the deficit is not at a historical high. Personally though I think the more meaningful measure would be deficit as a percentage of taxable[/i'] GDP, as this would to some extent give us some measure of our government's ability to pay it off.

See, I keep reading this here and there among the threads, but it still doesn't change the fact that the man spent over $700,000,000,000.

 

What has America got to show for it in the past 4 years? How does that compare to the average cost of running an administration? And so on.

[Pangloss]

See, I keep reading this here and there among the threads, but it still doesn't change the fact that the man spent over $700,000,000,000.

 

Actually I believe the US budget is almost two *trillion* dollars, Sayonara. It's really quite astonishing what this country manages to spend money on. (chuckle)

 

The deficit came in at about $422 billion. (The 700 figure was an early estimate, which has been downgraded several times.)

[Ophiolite]

I am confident that once the votes are counted the US will get the president they deserve. Whether the rest of the world will deserve him is a separate matter.

[AL]

See, I keep reading this here and there among the threads, but it still doesn't change the fact that the man spent over $700,000,000,000.

 

What has America got to show for it in the past 4 years? How does that compare to the average cost of running an administration? And so on.

I take issue with the idea of the deficit being unusual, because it's really an ordinary run-of-the-mill deficit America has gotten used to since FDR's Keynesianism. I do agree we don't have much to show for it, and I also believe some of our spending is unjustified and Bush "squandered" our surplus to some extent. But saying "much of Bush's spending is unwarranted" is one thing; to say the deficit is at an all-time high or poses a dire new threat is unintentionally misleading at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

[Pangloss]

I take issue with the idea of the deficit being unusual, because it's really an ordinary run-of-the-mill deficit America has gotten used to since FDR's Keynesianism.

 

Well we're not supposed to be Keynsian anymore, but for the most part I agree with this point. I wouldn't characterize it that way, but certainly deficit spending is nothing new.

 

 

I do agree we don't have much to show for it, and I also believe some of our spending is unjustified and Bush "squandered" our surplus to some extent.

 

The surplus was gone before he took office.

 

 

But saying "much of Bush's spending is unwarranted" is one thing; to say the deficit is at an all-time high or poses a dire new threat is unintentionally misleading at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

 

Well... I somewhat agree. I'm totally opposed to the polarizing politicization of the deficit issue. Both sides are to blame and both sides are going to have to compromise to fix it. But it IS an important problem and it DOES need to be fixed before it gets out of hand.

 

I think it will be something historians will debate for some time, in terms of whether or not the tax cut was a major part of the recovery. I believe it played a role, and many economists agree. But the tax cut turns out to roughly equal the deficit, as it turns out, and one simply cannot help but wonder what might have happened if we had not had the tax cut. Most economists agree that we would have had a recovery, and that it would not have been as dramatic as this one has been.

 

 

This is why politics needs to be removed from economics (and why it never will be). Without the tax cut Bush doesn't get re-elected, because he's looking at 2% growth instead of 4-6%, and no American president has ever been re-elected at under 3% growth (for comparison, his dad had 2, and Clinton hovered around 5-6). Since this kind of thinking absolutely rules political planning, it's inconceivable that Bush sees the tax cut as a bad thing -- it got him re-elected (if that in fact happens).

 

That means he'd do it again. And so would any other politician who observed this (as they all have). On both sides of the aisle.

 

And so we're right back at Square One. Deficit spending doesn't happen to save the economy (the ONLY time that's EVER happened is under Reagan, and that was to fix *inflation*), it happens for political reasons.

 

And that's bad. Period.

[r1dermon]

the budget deficit under this administration is up to 63.6% GDP. slated to rise to 477 billion dollars according to USAtoday.

kerry for president.

[Pangloss]

the budget deficit under this administration is up to 63.6% GDP. slated to rise to 477 billion dollars according to USAtoday. kerry for president.

 

(sigh) No. It's not.

 

US GDP is in the neighborhood of $10-11 *trillion*. $477 billion would be something like 4.77 percent of that.

 

Here's some good, basic info on GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

[Douglas]

the budget deficit under this administration is up to 63.6% GDP. slated to rise to 477 billion dollars according to USAtoday.

kerry for president.

I don't think so. Seems to me that last time I checked it (3 weeks ago) it was around 4.5%

[Firedragon52]

All I can say...can't wait Till Nov. 2nd......

[r1dermon]

yes, that was quite a misstep on my part. sorry about that. in the first quarter of 2004 it was reported that the budget was 5.4% of GDP. 63% came from an ultra biased source who i shouldnt of even considered using. USA today was where i got the 477 billion dollars.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/ and cnn.

[Pangloss]

Sounds like the deficit has been upgraded slightly from 422 to 477. Which is definitely interesting. Thanks for the link.