7.2% Economic Surge

[Dagodevas]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

I told you it would happen. You can thank the Bush tax cuts and Alan Greenspan lowering the Interest Rates for that. Of course, despite this fantastic news, the Democratic hopefuls are still attacking Bush’s economics. If it isn’t one thing, it’ll sure as Hell be another.

By the way, for those of you who don’t know, I’m not a Republican (so I’m not a Bush supporter) nor am I a Democrat, I don’t believe in associating with political parties. I just believe no one is giving Bush credit where credit is due as far as his future economic plans goes.

[BWS]

I agree with you; people will find something to bitch about despite what the present situation is because that is their intention and therefore they will arive at the wanted conclusion by ignoring certain facts and focusing on others which happen to convieniantly agree with what they belive in.
Anyways, yes yes, economy is doing well. Although the GDP equation can be changed by more than one input, it looks very promising.

[Chaoslight]

Hmm. Interesting. GWB isn't a total screwup.
Of course, in the CLinton Vs. Bush thing there's a question of wheather a president can materially affect the economy.

But if Bush did affect it, good for him. I still want him out, though. To conservative.

[Dagodevas]

At 10/30/03 04:31 PM, Chaoslight wrote: But if Bush did affect it, good for him. I still want him out, though. To conservative.

Well, there is evidence his tax cuts played a role in the whole issue, but it’s only one of many factors that played into it.

[General-Patton]

At 10/30/03 04:33 PM, Dagodevas wrote:

At 10/30/03 04:31 PM, Chaoslight wrote: But if Bush did affect it, good for him. I still want him out, though. To conservative.

Well, there is evidence his tax cuts played a role in the whole issue, but it’s only one of many factors that played into it.

Of course, everyone still hates Bush (except for me!).
Anyway, why is conservative bad. EVer hear of a little state calledf "California". They were what many call "liberal". They had LOTS of fun, didn't they.

[General-Patton]

Anyway, It turns out Bush was right about his tax cuts, and the liberals were flat-ass wrong. Of course, we still need to deal with all our manufacturing being sent to China.

[Chaoslight]

What's wrong with conservative? Ever hear of a little regiem called the Third Reich.

Good gods, you're id is General_Patton. Your idol, or at least your namesake fought against conservatives.

Now granted, the Bush is nowhere near Nazi Germany in terms of extree rightism, but...
Oh wait, I forgot about the PATRIOT ACT.

[General-Patton]

At 10/30/03 05:15 PM, Chaoslight wrote: What's wrong with conservative? Ever hear of a little regiem called the Third Reich.

Good gods, you're id is General_Patton. Your idol, or at least your namesake fought against conservatives.

Now granted, the Bush is nowhere near Nazi Germany in terms of extree rightism, but...
Oh wait, I forgot about the PATRIOT ACT.

Look, lets break it down. Conservative does not mean fascist. First of all, Republicans believe on less regulation on business (of course, not in the light of recent economic developments), more state responsisbilities, etc... In now way does it believe in gov't control of business (which happened in germany), or government control of everyon and everything. Obviously, you neither know what your saying nor the definition of conservative. Gerneal Patton fought against the genocidal fascists, and hated the communists (your idols, probably). Also, i can assure you that Bush and this administration are NOT similar to Nazis. If so, why would he even bother listening to Rice of Powell (who were basically his sole advisors on his asia trip). Of course, you'll come back with some smart-ass uninformed response about how america is for nazism, or communism is good. The nazi's were NOT conservative, the were maniacle genocidal killers. The mere fact that you would consider a government initiative to increase the governments ability to monitor the nation to a systematic effort to kill the jews and to eliminate all Nazi opponents is just silly.

[gerbilfromhellll]

ok, either this boom was caused by clinton, or the surge boom during the clinton administration wasn't caused by regan. you can't have it both ways. ok, let me back up and explain what i'm talking about:

i've been told SO many times by SO many people that the economic boom of the clinton administration was caused not by clinton's economic policies, but by regan's. it's actually a very interesting economics theory, but i won't get into it. basically it says the actions of a president won't effect the economy drastically for a number of years (actually, even if this IS true, the clinton boom would STILL have been caused by clinton because it didn't happen until his sixth year. LONG after regan was gone and long enough for his economic policies to take effect). now, if this theory is true, then this surge is in no way related to bush, but is actually because of clinton. if not, then this whole bullshit argument about regan's policies being the sole cause of the clinton administration's boom (even though what they really did was drastically increase our national debt and give us one of the highest defosits (sp) in our history). oh, regan's policies also centered around tax cuts, just like bush's. just wanted to point that out...

[Ravens-Grin]

At 10/30/03 05:21 PM, General_Patton wrote: The mere fact that you would consider a government initiative to increase the governments ability to monitor the nation to a systematic effort to kill the jews and to eliminate all Nazi opponents is just silly.

Can you infer that to modern day terrorist in the USA as well?

[Ravens-Grin]

At 10/30/03 05:21 PM, General_Patton wrote: The mere fact that you would consider a government initiative to increase the governments ability to monitor the nation to a systematic effort to kill the jews and to eliminate all Nazi opponents is just silly.

Can you infer that to modern day terrorist in the USA as well?

[Chaoslight]

At 10/30/03 05:21 PM, General_Patton wrote: some good points

Perhaps you're right. About conservative gvt being different from nazi fascism (sp) in more ways then just intensity.

I still don't agree with you, though. And no, communists are not my idols. My only political idol at the moment is Michael Moore. I think communism would be a good idea, if it could work. But it can't.

And I think what I meant was the fact that Bush is a right-wing christian nutcase.

But thanks for the corrections. Could do without the attitude, but you made some good points that I will try to remember.

And never let it be said that I don't admit it when my enemies are right. (On the rare occasions when they are.)

[Slizor]

Wait a sec. You lot can't have it both ways (BWS). You stated in another thread that the downturn in the economy was not Bush's fault....that it was natural. Yet you rush to claim that an upturn in the economy, which is just as natural (according to 19th Century economics which are the norm nowadays) is caused by Bush.

[General-Patton]

At 10/30/03 05:40 PM, Chaoslight wrote:

some good points

Perhaps you're right. About conservative gvt being different from nazi fascism (sp) in more ways then just intensity.

I still don't agree with you, though. And no, communists are not my idols. My only political idol at the moment is Michael Moore. I think communism would be a good idea, if it could work. But it can't.

And I think what I meant was the fact that Bush is a right-wing christian nutcase.

But thanks for the corrections. Could do without the attitude, but you made some good points that I will try to remember.

And never let it be said that I don't admit it when my enemies are right. (On the rare occasions when they are.)

Sorry about the attitude, its usually that when i respond to someone they either give me back the same info i just rebutted or throw false info at me. I am getting to used to it. :)
Althoug, Michael Moore has always impresesd me as a leftwing pompous asshole.
Also, Bush may be a little right wing, but he's not really a nutcase. Hell, if he was one of the bible pounders, how do you think he did so well with the shinto/buddhist/taoist/etc... asians. Apparently they liked him alot. He's also not a rude man. Bush, unlike alot of his constituents, does not attack the muslims as a people, and supports their fair treatment despite what their compatriots have done. Many people would not agree.

[Chaoslight]

Hell, if he was one of the bible pounders, how do you think he did so well with the shinto/buddhist/taoist/etc... asians. Apparently they liked him alot. He's also not a rude man.

That's true. Bush has charisma. He has a very outgoing personality, and he isn't rude. He isn't sm... nevermind, won't go there. However, he and his administration are insanely fanatic when it comes to the rights of homosexuals and women. Now, granted, it's not his fault, it's the culture he grew up in. I'm pretty sure I've made these points before, in at least one each of the gay rights and pro-life/choice threads.

Bush, unlike alot of his constituents, does not attack the muslims as a people, and supports their fair treatment despite what their compatriots have done. Many people would not agree.

This is true. Many people would not agree. I personally have no idea if it's Bush or just every one of his advisors. (NOTE! Some exaggeration included)

Bush the person is ok, if a bit of a mor... nevermind.
Bush the policy maker is an evil invader of peoples genetalia.

[General-Patton]

At 10/30/03 06:06 PM, Chaoslight wrote:

Hell, if he was one of the bible pounders, how do you think he did so well with the shinto/buddhist/taoist/etc... asians. Apparently they liked him alot. He's also not a rude man.

That's true. Bush has charisma. He has a very outgoing personality, and he isn't rude. He isn't sm... nevermind, won't go there. However, he and his administration are insanely fanatic when it comes to the rights of homosexuals and women. Now, granted, it's not his fault, it's the culture he grew up in. I'm pretty sure I've made these points before, in at least one each of the gay rights and pro-life/choice threads.

Bush, unlike alot of his constituents, does not attack the muslims as a people, and supports their fair treatment despite what their compatriots have done. Many people would not agree.

This is true. Many people would not agree. I personally have no idea if it's Bush or just every one of his advisors. (NOTE! Some exaggeration included)

Bush the person is ok, if a bit of a mor... nevermind.
Bush the policy maker is an evil invader of peoples genetalia.

Yes, Bush isn't eh brightest crayone in the box. However, at least he has the intelligence to surround himself with people that know more than him. Also, he and his administration, while not in support of some homosexual rights usually preserved for hetero sexuals (which is understandable, its a huge controversy), they are not against women. Come on, Dr.Rice is what is called a "woman". However, she is also the director of national security, has a big hand dipped in the Iraq pot of power, and also was one of Bush's most important advisors on his trip to aisa. Bush's wife even went in his stead to helkp patch up relations with France. You can't say Bush doesn't repect women.

[Chaoslight]

However, at least he has the intelligence to surround himself with people that know more than him.

Not bloody difficult... Blah blah smartass liberal comment here.

Also, he and his administration, while not in support of some homosexual rights usually preserved for hetero sexuals (which is understandable, its a huge controversy),

Understandable, but still a fanatic invading peoples no-nos.

they are not against women. Come on, Dr.Rice is what is called a "woman". However, she is also the director of national security, has a big hand dipped in the Iraq pot of power,

Which brings up another fanatical christian, or southern baptist, or whatever he is, ideal.

and also was one of Bush's most important advisors on his trip to aisa. Bush's wife even went in his stead to help patch up relations with France. You can't say Bush doesn't repect women.

Yes I can. perhaps he specific women, (i.e. his puppeteers) but women in general, as in 51% of the population of the US, he does not respect. His tax policies against single mothers, for example. Or the fact that he is pro-life, when he never even had to push out a kidney stone.
I'm never gonna like Bush. Call me an elitist, but i believe that a president should be able to get into college for no more then tuition, and preferably on scholarship. I think a president should hold a picture book right-side up when reading to kids. Or be able to eat a pretzel without dying.
But, as I said before, he's not a complete fuckup.

[Dagodevas]

At 10/30/03 05:15 PM, Chaoslight wrote: What's wrong with conservative? Ever hear of a little regiem called the Third Reich.

Now granted, the Bush is nowhere near Nazi Germany in terms of extree rightism, but...
Oh wait, I forgot about the PATRIOT ACT.

I don't see how this is relevant to the issue of our 7.2% economic rise.

[aidypunk]

At 10/30/03 04:09 PM, Dagodevas wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

I told you it would happen. You can thank the Bush tax cuts and Alan Greenspan lowering the Interest Rates for that. Of course, despite this fantastic news, the Democratic hopefuls are still attacking Bush’s economics. If it isn’t one thing, it’ll sure as Hell be another.

By the way, for those of you who don’t know, I’m not a Republican (so I’m not a Bush supporter) nor am I a Democrat, I don’t believe in associating with political parties. I just believe no one is giving Bush credit where credit is due as far as his future economic plans goes.

I can't help being reminded of a panel of economists concluding this summer that the recession really ended in December of 2001. A closer examination of that report revealed that those economists had emphasized productivity growth over job growth. That having been said,I think there are promising signs though it is too early to really tell. Keep in mind that GDP really did not grow at 7.2 percent in the third quarter; it grew at one-fourth that. Quarterly growth rates are usually quadrupled and reported as Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates (SAAR). Furthermore, the growth was mainly in consumer spending, a variable that is somewhat unstable. We have seen jumps spending previously in this recession. We will have to wait to see how firms react. Additionally, the analysis giving credit to the President's tax cut seems somewhat weak. The article seems to rely mostly on administration spokesmen, and not on third party sources in that regard.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

Yeah! Cuz we all know that Tax cuts arn't short-term solutions to long-term problems or anything!

[BWS]

At 10/30/03 05:46 PM, Slizor wrote: Wait a sec. You lot can't have it both ways (BWS). You stated in another thread that the downturn in the economy was not Bush's fault....that it was natural. Yet you rush to claim that an upturn in the economy, which is just as natural (according to 19th Century economics which are the norm nowadays) is caused by Bush.

Whatchu talking bout Willis!? No, im not contradicting myself. Its is natural for both. But I think that the tax cuts have helped. I also admitted in the other thread that he can affect the magnitude of the change wheather for the good or worse. I feel that some of the new tax laws have helped and will continue to help. I said that he is not to blame for the recession, and that he has helped out, a bit, in the coming out of it; by logic, these do not contradict. I still say that the Feds have more power in this realm though.
Slizors out ta get me! :P

[Slizor]

I feel that some of the new tax laws have helped and will continue to help

You think? You mean you guess? I would be mored inclined to guess that the growth comes from the billions of dollars put into the arms industry and the massive (as in massively overestimated) Iraqi contracts to American firms, the so called "reconstruction" (which Bush wants other countries to pay for.)

Slizors out ta get me! :P

Have a cookie :D

*laces said cookie with chocolate superlax*

[BWS]

No, I think that most of it is due to the investment of capital; this is because of the interest rates though. The tax cuts help because people will spend more; simple, I know(they anticipate what their taxes will be, and spend accordingly). Of course there are tons of other reasons, but I think that these contribute the most.

[Slizor]

The tax cuts help because people will spend more; simple, I know(they anticipate what their taxes will be, and spend accordingly).

The tax cuts affected pretty much only the rich. This does not fuel consumption. It is probably going to be put in the bank instead of spent. And if it does fuel consumption it will only be on luxury items. Tax cuts for the poor though, they fuel consumption.

[BWS]

At 11/1/03 07:32 AM, Slizor wrote: The tax cuts affected pretty much only the rich.

Im sorry, but youre wrong about this. Just trust me on this because im not about to start posting tax code laws here; im a accounting/tax major, so this isnt just an opinion of mine.

This does not fuel consumption. It is probably going to be put in the bank instead of spent.

Maybe not consumption, but it fuels investment. Capital investment is great for the economy, and due to the present interest rates here, many business owners have been investing money this way.

[karasz]

lets not forget also that THIS QUARTER got a 7.2% econ surge... bush already stated that hey this is impossible to sustain, so dont start claiming the economy is fixed...

[JMHX]

If anything, this is a boom-and-bust situation, and this, remember, was Bush trying to correct his earlier errors. This 7.2%, while nice, has been spaced from the Administration, as they know it will not last. It's a nice blip on Bush's failed economic record, but nothing worth circling an election around. However, when you're trying to ignore the rest of the Bush policies, you don't have much else to be proud of.

[Slizor]

Been meaning to post this for a while.

Im sorry, but youre wrong about this. Just trust me on this because im not about to start posting tax code laws here; im a accounting/tax major, so this isnt just an opinion of mine.

It is an opinion of yours. It is probably a more qualified opinion, but it is an opinion none the less. This is why historians, economists, political scientists (bastard politicians stole our word!) disagree, because they hold different, yet qualified, opinions. Anyway, how does tax law relate?

This does not fuel consumption. It is probably going to be put in the bank instead of spent.

Maybe not consumption, but it fuels investment. Capital investment is great for the economy, and due to the present interest rates here, many business owners have been investing money this way.

Wouldn't investment cause an increase in the number of jobs? And what if it's foreign investment (as in going to another country.)?

[BWS]

At 11/9/03 09:12 AM, Slizor wrote: It is an opinion of yours. It is probably a more qualified opinion, but it is an opinion none the less.

Well, actually, what you said was an opinion. I know that it didnt affect only the rich and so thats what I said. I know for a fact that the new laws do not only help the rich because they dont. There are new laws that affect many equations; a lot of these equations have nothing to do with the rich because they are phased out after a certain amount of income.

Maybe not consumption, but it fuels investment. Capital investment is great for the economy, and due to the present interest rates here, many business owners have been investing money this way.

Wouldn't investment cause an increase in the number of jobs? And what if it's foreign investment (as in going to another country.)?

Not always. The investments are capital investments that exclude hiring, I think; more along the lines of investing in equipment and the like because of our current interest rates. Owners are still skeptical when it comes to hiring according to many cheif economists whom analyze the markets condition. And yes, some of it is foreign investment, but much more of it is domestic; proof of this is the fact that our GDP has risen the way it has last quarter.

[Slizor]

Well, actually, what you said was an opinion.

Indeed it was, as is everything in my opinion.

I know that it didnt affect only the rich and so thats what I said.

And I didn't say they did. I said they pretty much did.

Wouldn't investment cause an increase in the number of jobs? And what if it's foreign investment (as in going to another country.)?

Not always. The investments are capital investments that exclude hiring, I think; more along the lines of investing in equipment and the like because of our current interest rates. Owners are still skeptical when it comes to hiring according to many cheif economists whom analyze the markets condition. And yes, some of it is foreign investment, but much more of it is domestic; proof of this is the fact that our GDP has risen the way it has last quarter.

GDP is what is produced right? And a quarter is 3 months? A breakdown of what the GDP surge was in (what sector) would tell you if it is a long term move, or a short term move (which could be due to any thousands of reasons.) Essentially a rise in GDP without a corresponding rise in the number of jobs will be destined to be a short term move unless it is caused by the rich.