Which Fool Should I Vote For? Bush or Kerry?

[Alias47]

Well said BPC...

 

[CAV]

All politics aside, I've got to blow the BS whistle here

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.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

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

 

[CAV]

But they did.......

Whit,

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

 

[bpc]

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.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Re: But they did.......

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.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

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.

 

[CAV]

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.

 

[Alias47]

Re: All politics aside, I've got to blow the BS whistle here

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.

 

[CAV]

One question for ya.........

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.

 

[Alias47]

Fact Check??

Bush was inaugurated on Jan. 20th, 2001.
Clinton's was by FAR lower... I realize that Sept. 11th, 2001 was a major factor...but if you notice the annual you will see that his track record is no where NEAR even meriting a comparison to Clinton's. I have SPACED this one...so the figures line up.

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 - - - - -

 

[Alias47]

He IS at a 5.7 so far this year. His best record since he took office.

 

[CAV]

Remember when you thought math would never come in handy?

Uhhh.......

Calander year 2001 was Bush's first full year in office and it was 4.75%.

Curses foiled again.......

 

[Alias47]

Which is STILL higher that the previous 3 years.
You stated that his is lower than Clinton's ever was...which is just NOT factual.

That is my only point.

You make a convincing argument most of the time...backed up by good, intelligent information...and a great grasp of world politics.

I just hate to see you make a bold statement that can be proven wrong in under 2 minutes with a quick web search.

You are better than that.
SO far...I haven't seen you use any of the spin tactics (I have all along, so at least I am consistant, if not ethical) that BOTH parties use to bolster their position.
It wouldn't be fair to the conversation to start now.

 

[Alias47]

He IS at a 5.7 so far this year. His best record since he took office.

I meant to edit that part out...not get foiled...I realized that his was 4.7 his first year...notice the big jump from the previous years??

George never was good at staying in business,though?

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Originally posted by CAV
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.

I prefer not to thank any of the presidents for any of the things they've done to expand presidential power. I don't appreciate any skewing of the Constitution without amending it, like executive orders and privilege, Congressional resolutions that don't declare war but only authorize force, etc etc. I mean if someone is going to do something, do it and take responsibility for it, don't make your lackey take the fall for a bad decision, don't hide behind a technicality (and that criticism applies to BOTH political parties).

And, since I live in Michigan, Eisenhower didn't really do me a favor by building all those highways, they're never done up here anyway.

 

[Ken Harbart]

I meant to edit that part out...not get foiled...I realized that his was 4.7 his first year...notice the big jump from the previous years??

George never was good at staying in business,though?

To begin with, you will note that the initial rise in unemployment took place in January. Bill Clinton was still president during the better part of that month. Secondly, note that the rate began to decline after Bush took over at the helm. It should also be noted that unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic health. The economy actually began to stall circa summer of 2000 and there was already talk of an impending recession.

It took a few months, but the recession for which we were overdue began in March 2001. The unemployment rate didn't start catching up to the recession until June. Unemployment stayed below 5% until the attacks of 9/11, which makes comparisons after that date an apples and oranges argument. However, the statistics, when viewed in the proper context of the aftermath of the attacks and our subsequent recovery, shows a healthy recovery.

 

[Alias47]

Every republican I know claims that the recession under George Bush was Clinton's fault. Now mind you, I am not a Democrat...so don't say that is my excuse...but Clinton brought the unemployment rate to a low not seen since 1966-1969, and before that since the early 50's.

He took over from GHW Bush...who briefly lowered it from his predecessor...only to have it on the rise again when Clinton took office.


If YOU will note...every January the Unemployment rate increases about a point EVERY YEAR, consistently.

If you will also notice, It declined only for a period of 4 months...then was back where it began...and on the rise.

Of course Sept.11 makes it apples and oranges...but, given his economic track record (How many failed attempts at running businesses??, heck, he wasn't even good enough to run Major League Baseball) what makes anyone think he can run this country...he is a monkey...someones tool.

 

[Ken Harbart]

The recession of 2001 wasn't Bush's fault, nor was it Clinton's. The US economy is cyclic, and we were well overdue for a recession. Some people blame the dot com bust for the recession, but that was only a small piece of the puzzle. However, that the groundwork for the recession was laid prior to 2001 is a fact.

Once gain, I'll restate the fact that unemployment is a lagging indicator. Of course, it's going to rise starting in June, as a recession began three months earlier. Only the intentionally obtuse would expect e decline in unemployment during a recession.

The only thing proven thus far is that the US economy is recovering well from 9/11.

 

[bpc]

Actually, all those stats are worthless. Unemployment figures come from only those unemployed who apply for unemployment. Unemployment benefits run out! And once they do those people can't reapply. Because of this people are often required to take menial jobs just so don't lose their house, car, etc. Hence they are not unemployed, but they are underemployed. Usually almost as bad.

It's plain and simple folks. Bush is spending more money than he has. He continues to buy votes, and politcal backing by cutting taxes even though he has put this country into deficit spending which will take DECADES to recover from. I mean it's so bad, that even the bright shining democrats are saying they can't fix it in 4 years! When have you ever heard a democrat say they can't fix something if given four years?

I think many republicans vote based on guns, abortion, gay marriage, and taxes.
I see no dangers from either candidate when come to guns. Yeah, Kerry might not want you to have a 100 shot magazine for your pistol. But he's not going to take away your pistol. And you should be able to hit your target w/ at least one of the first 15 bullets anyway.
Abortion is a settled matter. The only thing a president can do that MIGHT influence abortion is appoint a supreme court justice that thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. However, every appointee has to be approved, and no justice who is that extreme is every going to get approved.
Gay marriage is a moot point because both candidates are against it. As we heard last night the only difference is that Bush wants an unnecesary constitutional ammendment. Further, if you can not aknowledge that gay couple should be extended at least some of the same rights as married couples, then you really need to get a grip!
And then taxes. Here's where they really differ and it really matters. Both support continued tax breaks for the "middle class." Edwards said last night that they would not raise taxes on anyone making less than 200k per year (I personally consider that an expansion of the middle class). Bush has not given us anything to go on as far as how he plans on paying for the spending he is doing. I guess he figures the next guy can figure that part out. But what he has done HAS NOT WORKED, and he is promising nothing beyond "more of the same." Giving back $400 so I can spend it and pay taxes on it, is just stupid. Think about it. If we're already in the whole, keep all the money, and PAY THE BILLS.