Hillary Comes In Third, Lol! Obama Rules Iowa

[island eagle]

Your attempt at sarcasm actually hits the nail on the head. The past 10 years have been very good economically for the US. Here are the Gross Domestic Product by year:

1997 +6.2% 1998 +5.3% 1999 +6.0% 2000 +5.9% 2001 +3.2% 2002 +3.4% 2003 +4.7% 2004 +6.6% 2005 +6.4% 2006 +6.1%

In that span, we had a two quarter recession in late 2000/early 2001, but the revised numbers showed that we actually flirted back and forth across that zero-growth line for a few quarters, so we were technically never in recession.

Using the traditional definition of a recession (two or more straight quarters of negative GDP) we have had two mild recessions since Reaganomics started. Late 1981/early 1982, and then again in late 1990/early 1991. These numbers are available at http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

Once again... facts trump hyperbole.

Even today with high energy prices and a shaky housing market, our economy is diverse enough to weather these mild bumps. That is the best benefit of Reagonomics.

I read the Wall Street Journal everyday so I am quite familiar with this kind of nonsense. Stats can be doctored to reflect any point of view. A few of us live in the real world and see how real people are doing, not ivory tower economists putting out carefully scripted stats designed to prove an assumption they have already embraced.

Try talking to just about any middle class person you meet and ask them if they are doing better today than 10 years ago What those "stats" DON'T show, is stagnation in middle and lower class incomes, to just name one example. I know many people whose "effective" salary has been flat or negative for the past decade. Apparently a lot of other people feel the same way, because they are voting with that issue in mind (look at Huckabee's success with this issue) and it was reflected in 2006 and will be (I guarantee) in 2008.

Speaking of facts. Reagenomics busted the budget (look at the yearly deficits under Reagan). Clinton brought them under control and Bush and the Repugs busted it again. You can talk about "tax cuts', but the inevitable decline of the dollar (due in large part to our deficit) is costing tax payers far more than any chump-change, "smoke and mirror" tax cut passed by calculating politicians who could care less about the growing deficit.

But, far be it from me to try to dissuade you from you reverie. As far as I am concerned Bush and the Republicans can rule forever and you are welcome to reap whatever benefits you deserve. But, don't try to pass off you delusions as reality. I don't spend my time in gated communities or Highland Park, so I know what is happening to the average Joe. But, again, don't believe me. Let's just see what the voters think about your "great economy".

As for me, I am well-invested to guard against most eventualities. I made money under Reagan, both Bushes and the Clintons, got out of dot.com's before the crash (my philosophy is to avoid going where the fools are heading) and sold out my real estate holdings two years ago. Good luck my Mean Green friend. May you get what you want.

[meangreendork]

And actually, if you were born after the 1950s you pretty much don't know what a bad economy is. The late 70s were our last big economic slump.

That doesn't mean any slowdown in the economy is something to laugh at. Right now, it's hard to believe that our economy is secure when the dollar is taking a serious hit overseas, inflation in the states compounding that problem, and a 5% unemployment rate in December. Sure, that 5% is only a big number when you look at the last few years, but say that to the people in that 5%. I'm sure they don't mind. I won't go into the current trend of deficit spending...it's like watching a teenager with a new credit card.

Clinton did well with the budget, and managed to create a surplus. Too bad he nearly crippled the intelligence community and dealt a blow to the military. Isn't there some sort of way to have a sound economy, a balanced budget, and do well in foreign relations and military/intelligence?

The new president has a list of ailments to at least try to cure- failing national infrastructure, health care, overstretched military, energy problems, the downward value of the dollar, education...there's a great deal more, and that's just within our own borders.

Edited January 7, 2008 by meangreendork

[UNTflyer]

I read the Wall Street Journal everyday so I am quite familiar with this kind of nonsense. Blah, blah, blah. Try talking to just about any middle class person you meet and ask them if they are doing better today than 10 years ago

Sure, Mr. Man of the People. I am certain you are out there every day talking to regular Joes and getting their take on the economy. I was brought up not to ask people about their personal financial situation. But Gallup asked Americans how they were doing. Just before the New Year, Gallup conducted a poll and found that 84% of American were personally satisifed with their lives.

84% is a remarkable number considering your claim that our economy is basically in the toilet. You cite numbers from the government to support your opposition to supply-side economics, but when the government numbers don't agree with what you believe you just dismiss them as being doctored. You can't do that and make a credible argument. The GDP numbers show that we have enjoyed wonderful economic growth through both Republican and Democrat administrations despite a stock market bust in early 2000 and a major terrorist attack in 2001.

Americans are happy with their lives, 95% of mortgages are in good standing, we have unemployment of 5% or lower for almost 6 years, and the Census Bureau's survey in August said that household income rose for a 2nd straight year after being relatively flat since 1999.

Speaking of facts. Reagenomics busted the budget (look at the yearly deficits under Reagan).

Yup. And the result was an economic boom that lasted for almost a decade and the fall of the Soviet Union, which opened up Eastern Europe to the economic growth they are enjoying now. Most economists will tell you that the federal deficit is really not a big deal as long as economic growth remains positive.

As for me, I am well-invested to guard against most eventualities.

Well, good for you. It sounds like you are among the 84% of Americans who are satisfied with their lives.

Edited January 7, 2008 by UNTflyer

[Coffee and TV]

Democrats:

Obama

1. stated he would invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden........200 million people.....a bunch a nukes...

2. stated he wants universal health care.....more money out of my pocket for another govt. program.

3. amnisty for all illegals......more money out of my pocket again for continued social services and an invitation for more to walk across the border and strain more money out of my pocket.

You're helpless if you believe any of those 3. Please quit listening to that fat sac of crap Limbaugh and try thinking once in your life.

[Coffee and TV]

What did Nixon do?

Watergate

You answered your own question.

[UNTflyer]

You're helpless if you believe any of those 3. Please quit listening to that fat sac of crap Limbaugh and try thinking once in your life.

1 out of 3 are correct.

Edited January 7, 2008 by UNTflyer

[meangreendork]

You're helpless if you believe any of those 3. Please quit listening to that fat sac of crap Limbaugh and try thinking once in your life.

Obama said he'd send the military into Pakistan if the intelligence were right. He also said that'd not go in unilaterally, and work with Musharraf. That is, after he backtracked on an earlier comment on acting on intelligence in Pakistan if Musharraf won't.

Mind you, I'm still leaning towards Obama and Paul. Huckabee freaks me out, so does Hillary, and so does "911" Giuliani.

Edited January 7, 2008 by meangreendork

[island eagle]

Sure, Mr. Man of the People. I am certain you are out there every day talking to regular Joes and getting their take on the economy. I was brought up not to ask people about their personal financial situation. But Gallup asked Americans how they were doing. Just before the New Year, Gallup conducted a poll and found that 84% of American were personally satisifed with their lives.

84% is a remarkable number considering your claim that our economy is basically in the toilet. You cite numbers from the government to support your opposition to supply-side economics, but when the government numbers don't agree with what you believe you just dismiss them as being doctored. You can't do that and make a credible argument. The GDP numbers show that we have enjoyed wonderful economic growth through both Republican and Democrat administrations despite a stock market bust in early 2000 and a major terrorist attack in 2001.

Americans are happy with their lives, 95% of mortgages are in good standing, we have unemployment of 5% or lower for almost 6 years, and the Census Bureau's survey in August said that household income rose for a 2nd straight year after being relatively flat since 1999.

Yup. And the result was an economic boom that lasted for almost a decade and the fall of the Soviet Union, which opened up Eastern Europe to the economic growth they are enjoying now. Most economists will tell you that the federal deficit is really not a big deal as long as economic growth remains positive.

Well, good for you. It sounds like you are among the 84% of Americans who are satisfied with their lives.

Yeah, they're so satisfied that there is a stampede out of the Republican Party (those facts are easy to find in every poll out on voter attitudes and voter registration).

I live in a community where rich and poor, minority and majority live right next door to each other. You actually find out what people think about things like their economic that when you don't hide out in a suburb and don't live in a place where people are living above their means to impress the Jones.

You say the deficit doesn't matter??? It's one of the three primary causes for the devaluation of the dollar...the other two are the trade imbalance and the unprecedented level of personal debt in this country. The US government has only three choices in dealing with this: 1. allow it to happen without trying to prop up the dollar (the course they have chosen because they don't have to take responsibility for it); 2. Do a formal devaluation (which is politically unpopular and is unnecessary if you allow it to occur) and 3> Allow our debtors (outside nations) dictate a devaluation and restructuring of our debt as we have done through the IMF with so many other countries. We have been informed in no uncertain terms that this would occur if we did try to prop it up.

What we are getting is a slow adjustment to our real standard of living, which is considerably less than our "lived" standard....thanks to massive loads of credit and personal debt. Unfortunately, the days of propping up the standard of living with easy credit and high debt and over and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Few politicians are touching this real issue, which is why Huckabee has hit such a nerve among the common people and why the Wall Street Journal (and Fox Network) have pulled out all stops to discredit him. Fox also doesn't like Paul, because they don't like true conservatives, they much prefer the kind that talk about fiscal restraint, etc/ while rewarding all their special interest groupies.

[UNTflyer]

Yeah, they're so satisfied that there is a stampede out of the Republican Party (those facts are easy to find in every poll out on voter attitudes and voter registration).

BZZZ!!! Wrong.

"The number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans jumped nearly two percentage points in December to 34.2%. That's the largest market share for the Republican brand in nearly two years, since January 2006. At the same time, the number of Democrats fell to 36.3%. That’s down a point compared to a month ago. During 2007, the number of Democrats has ranged from a low of 35.9% in July to a high of 37.8% in February."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...partisan_trends

I live in a community where rich and poor, minority and majority live right next door to each other. You actually find out what people think about things like their economic that when you don't hide out in a suburb and don't live in a place where people are living above their means to impress the Jones.

Hmm, a place where rich and poor live right next door to each other? I think you are exaggerating, but even if you are not I doubt any of them are telling you about their personal economic situation.

You say the deficit doesn't matter???

No, read it again. I said most economists agree that deficits are not a big deal provided we have economic growth. It's analogous to a company borrowing money in order to grow a company. As long as the result is a positive net cash flow, the company is OK. Same idea here... we spend money to build roads and the military and education, as long as the net result is a larger GDP, then we're good.

What we are getting is a slow adjustment to our real standard of living, which is considerably less than our "lived" standard....thanks to massive loads of credit and personal debt. Unfortunately, the days of propping up the standard of living with easy credit and high debt and over and the chickens are coming home to roost.

You may be right. Such is the cyclic nature of free market capitalism. Early, middle, and late expansion usually followed by early and late contraction... market tops and market bottoms. This will never ever change no matter what government does. And, as a point, government rarely helps the economy other than to ensure free market forces play out fairly.

Few politicians are touching this real issue, which is why Huckabee has hit such a nerve among the common people and why the Wall Street Journal (and Fox Network) have pulled out all stops to discredit him. Fox also doesn't like Paul, because they don't like true conservatives, they much prefer the kind that talk about fiscal restraint, etc/ while rewarding all their special interest groupies.

That's because few Americans understand the nature of economics. They think the government has some magic room that controls the economy and the President is like the great and Powerful Oz behind the curtain pulling levers and pushing buttons. In reality, all government can do is hinder the free market system with taxes and regulation. Those taxes and regulations are a neccesary evil, but I cannot think of one thing the government does to help the economy other than to protect it from outside invaders and ensuring all parties are forced to play by market rules.

That being said, the numbers don't lie. There are mixed economic indicators, and the economy at this time can really go either way- recession or growth. I have no doubt there are people in trouble out there, but as usual the bad economic news is hyped by a media that makes money on bad news. The media have been talking "Recession" for 5 years, and it hasn't yet happened. We will go into recession eventually, but it will probably be minor and blown way out of proportion, just like the Reagan and Clinton recessions.

Edited January 7, 2008 by UNTflyer

[eulesseagle]

coffee and tv.....

pick up a newspaper and confirm what i said.

1. wanted to go into pakistan...............................FACT

2. wants manditory universal health coverage.......FACT

3. amnisty for illegals..........................................FACT

as for limbaugh i can't stand to listen to him and all his self indulgence.

i do, as apparently you don't, read various news sources concerning the issues including various world newspapers.

www.world-newspapers.com

I might recommend these.....you get them in the english version:

The Times............................england

The Telegraph......................england

Pravda.................................russia

a couple of Moscow papers.....russia

Der Spiegal...........................germany

Try out these web sites:

www.thedrudgereport.....................has both conservative and liberal news sites

www.hotair.com.............................mostly conservative but you can get a flavor of liberal views

www.townhall.com.........................mostly conservative

\

coffee & tv, basically, don't let other people tell you how to think......and i mean it in all honesty.......there is enough information out there where you can make an intelligent decision before you go off on one of your knee jerk reactions on what Obama wants to do. read what Barrack Hussain Obama said.....i did.......evidently you did not.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--Advice... listen to what people say.. and notice to what they have actually done.....

Not to what others claim they say and what others they claim they have done. There is a big difference.

I have heard several people say Obama went to a ?Medrasa? which is a Islamic terrorist school..

The truth was he in a private Catholic school in Indonesia where his father worked. I even got several emails from various people about this. All false.

----A lot of misleading statements are made as well ----such as Bush complaining about (several years ago) about congress not passing the homeland security act he wanted The reason most would not vote for it was an (unrelated) provision that exempted drug companies from lawsuits exceeded $100,000 even though the drug involved may have blinded or permantly disabled a person. Even the original sponser would not vote for his own bill once that had been added in committee. Often when a senator/congressman is "slammed" for not voting for a bill he may actually support most of it and even the part they he is being criticized about but not the crazy admendments that have been added. Meanwhile Limbough and group are going crazy on the radio about how stupid he/she is for not supporting a certain concept. Those who really don't read much think they know what is happening but don't have a clue. Anyone who listens to one sourse or network is a poorly informed person.

---If you listened to Nixon (and friends) only you would have thought he was a great guy.... he wasn't...but he may have been better than the current one who has gotten us into an unjustified war that is costing us American lives and money..... No other President is history has invaded a major foreign country without be first provoked... (9-11 had no connection to Iraq and none of them had ever lived in Iraq) Now no one really has a good solution or way out (either party or any candidate) without some Crazy Islamic group taking over as they did in Iran. Saddam was bad but the alternatives seem worse. Guess the current group never heard of Pandora's box or Humpty-Dumpty, some things just can't really be fixed. .... just let sleeping dogs lie, may not be a good answer but often better than awakening them.

Edited January 7, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Coffee and TV]

read what Barrack Hussain Obama said.....i did.......evidently you did not.

I'm glad you used his full name to promote fear-mongering. You are what's wrong with this country. Besides, your boy Fred will drop out after his 3% showing in New Hampshire tomorrow night, so you might want to start looking for another candidate.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Coffee and TV

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Romney is the one big name that looks absolutely dead to me. The other candidates don't like him and not because he is leading..... plus considering the money he has spent and the energy he has poured into the campaign so far, he should being doing better.

---The Democrats ae down to three it appears and nothing has been decided at all... These are small states and not very urban either... and all northern... Hillary has her followers but at the same time there is a large group that strongly oppose her... I doubt she wins by the time it is all over. If so, then expect the GOP nominee to take her out.

--Stebo... yes I did fire back in the other thread. I don't care for her but considering what we have she couldn't be worse. I wish McCain had beat him in 2000 but he didn't..(due to a lot of dirty tricks by Rowe and group, they now admit it and seem proud of it.) . now McCain is getting pretty old.... maybe too old. The same group of people (with a different name) tore into Kerry... who actually served in a war-zone and put his life at risk instead of some national guard unit that he didn't seem to attend much. Kerry and Gore were the only two from those Yale classes that went to Nam... they rest managed to stay home. Gore was in a relative safe positon but he was there ... not in Houston or Alabama campaigning for someone.

---I live in Midland...my house is 0.6 mile from where Bush lived after he was married. I have seen him several times but never really met him other than a polite hello. He once jogged by my house at times, usually with friends.

Edited January 7, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66