Which Fool Should I Vote For? Bush or Kerry?

Well said BPC...

Unfortunately, from a strictly economic standpoint, BPC statements aren't entirely accurate.

Point 1:
At no point have real economists ever tracked "job creation" as an economic indicator. This "indicator" has just started popping up in the media since 2002. It is a meaningless statistic because it doesn't have an annualized basis by which to compare it.

Example: 20,000 jobs are lost (or created). In order to determine if this is good, bad, or horrible you must know what percent of the workforce is affected and whether it has cyclical variance. If it is out of a possible pool of 20,000,000 eligible workers, it would be much higher of a percentage than out of let's say 200,000,000. Let’s not forget that such a number fluctuates up and down daily, weekly and monthly.

Total unemployment has always been the figure used to accurately reflect overall economic health. When you look at that figure, versus "job creation" is paint a completely different picture. National unemployment is currently below 5.5%. This is in fact even lower than the peak of the "Clinton Boom" of the 1990s.

Point 2:
Tax cuts and/or Government spending spurs economic growth, period. That is Macroeconomics 101. In order to reverse a downturn in the economic cycle, addition spending is needed. For every dollar that a corporation or an individual saves in taxes, it is one more dollar that can be spent to buy a new piece of equipment, or hire a new worker, or buy a new car. The increased spending generates additional tax revenues through new sales taxes or corporate/individual income taxes. In essence, by lowering taxes, the government actual generates more tax revenues. Again this is well known economic theory, and not election year political spin.

This crap about "tax cuts for the rich" is exactly that; crap. Each and every person on this forum that works in the U.S. and pays taxes received an equal percentage of tax cuts and freely spent that money without a second thought. If you want to hit the republican party for anything related to the deficit it is in regards to their freehanded fiscal spending, not the tax cuts.

The sole constitutional responsibility for both federal spending and the levying of taxes rests with the Congress, not the Executive Branch. You can research that for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

Yes, but the sole ability to declare war rests with Congress, seems to me like the legislature and the executive branch are experiencing a job change for an election cycle or two, I think someone should have to answer for that. But oh wait, silly me thinking that the representatives elected to office should answer to the public, in my naive idealistic outlook, that's what I thought publically elected meant!!!!!

And I quote, Article 1, section 8, clause 11"[Congress shall have the power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

-Whit

Whit,

Congress, with Kerry's vote no less, did authorize the use of force in Iraq. The government functioned just as the constitution specified.

For every dollar that a corporation or an individual saves in taxes, it is one more dollar that can be spent to buy a new piece of equipment, or hire a new worker, or buy a new car. The increased spending generates additional tax revenues through new sales taxes or corporate/individual income taxes. In essence, by lowering taxes, the government actual generates more tax revenues.

You're right I did spend the money. However, the government gave me $400 (or whatever it was), and when I spent it, they didn't get $400 back. They might have recouped 15 maybe even 20%. But had they just kept the $400, they could have used all of that towards all this deficit spending they are now doing.

Simple economics 101 says: You don't spend more than you make, or you go broke! George Bush doesn't seem to understand that. He is bad for this country, period.

Cav, can you honestly say that if you had to choose one man either Kerry or Bush to go and represent this county at a summit. A summit where the person you chose had to think on their feet, communicate well, understand global politics, etc....AND had to do all that w/o ANY help, that you'd pick Bush? Honestly Kerry probably wouldn't be my first choice either, but he would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher up than Bush.

Originally posted by CAV
Whit,

Congress, with Kerry's vote no less, did authorize the use of force in Iraq. The government functioned just as the constitution specified.

Actually, no, they didn't. A use of force authorization is just a resolution of Congress, not a formal declaration of war as specified in the Constitution.

Oh, and I didn't vote Kerry into office, and neither did you, unless you're one of the fine residents of massachusetts. At the time, I was not of age to vote, but I would have if I had the opportunity to.

Originally posted by bpc
Cav, can you honestly say that if you had to choose one man either Kerry or Bush to go and represent this county at a summit. A summit where the person you chose had to think on their feet, communicate well, understand global politics, etc....AND had to do all that w/o ANY help, that you'd pick Bush?

Absolutely. I'm diametrically opposed to just about every position that Kerry has ever held.

Whitney, that is not accurate. A Declaration of War per the Constitution is not required to engage in military action. You can thank LBJ for setting that precident with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Originally posted by CAV

Total unemployment has always been the figure used to accurately reflect overall economic health. When you look at that figure, versus "job creation" is paint a completely different picture. National unemployment is currently below 5.5%. This is in fact even lower than the peak of the "Clinton Boom" of the 1990s.

CAV...can you show me where it was lower than Clinton's??
These numbers are directly from the US DEPT of Labor.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1992 8.1 8.2 7.8 7.2 7.3 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.3 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.5
1993 8.0 7.8 7.4 6.9 6.8 7.2 7.0 6.6 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.9
1994 7.3 7.1 6.8 6.2 5.9 6.2 6.2 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.3 5.1 6.1
1995 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.8 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.6
1996 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.4
1997 5.9 5.7 5.5 4.8 4.7 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.9
1998 5.2 5.0 5.0 4.1 4.2 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.5
1999 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.2
2000 4.5 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.0
2001 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.4 4.7
2002 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.7 5.5 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.8
2003 6.5 6.4 6.2 5.8 5.8 6.5 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.4 6.0
2004 6.3 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.3 5.8 5.7 5.4

Here is a graph...so you can easily compare.


Seems your information source is as exceptionally biased as everyone else.

Who was president during that lowest period of unemployement?

You might want to do some fact checking of your own before you try to trip me up.