1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Voters unhappy with economy

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Popeye, Dec 21, 2007.

  1. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    It's the economy, stupid. Which could mean good news for the Democrats in 2008.
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/22339981
     
  2. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Seems logical.

    Recessions can creep up slowly by bad planning over a long period of time or they can be set into play by some major spending event... i.e. a firm commitment to some long term military occupations feudally attempting to Nation Build.

    The fact is things are coming to a head. It's not at all unusual that bad policies from a previous administration are dropped in the laps of the following one.

    I see a lot of what Bush has done as having an ulterior motive (no conspiracy theory here just a common end to publicly known positions).

    I think even the Republicans know that the occupation spending is obscene and is never going to provide long term super positive results. But it does do something else for them. Think about it...

    The Dems under President Bill Clinton had already started pushing the idea that some kind of universal heathcare was going to be needed as the gap between the haves and the have nots expanded.

    Now this does take some funding especially in the switch over phase. But that wasn't as big of a problem back then because the Clinton era surplus projection was very, very good.

    The pubbies seeing this as just another entitlement for the lower classes had to want this money taken off the table. Wrapping themselves in an American flag and promoting a long term occupation does a really good job achieving that.

    I support the Dems (really you think :D) and I do think universal heathcare is a good thing and will be needed in the long run. But I worry if the promises being made to make that happen quickly are achievable with the economy Mr. Bush will be leaving us with.

    I think that's why Hillary has taken the most middle of the road position of some kind of a dual offering with private insurance still being available but also having a universal safety net of some kind.

    We need to remember that hospitals treat people with no coverage now for free and those cost are just passed on to us the paying public through our raised private insurance premiums.

    We can work out a better system. We just have to have leaders that hear the public mandate & recognize the need.
     
  3. jpn of Seattle

    jpn of Seattle Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Apparently the Richard Berner of Morgan Stanley is generally mildly optimistic regarding the economy. So it's not good when he says:

    "A mild recession is now likely: We expect domestic demand to contract by an average 1% annualized in each of the next three quarters, no growth in overall GDP for the year ending in the third quarter of 2008 and corporate earnings to contract by 5-10% over that longer period."
    http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2007/20071210-Mon.html#anchor5880

    We may already be in a recession:

    Macroeconomic Advisers: Economy Now Shrinking
    Macroeconomic Advisers, which prepares one of the most thorough estimates of gross domestic product, now sees it contracting in the current quarter.
    They lowered their estimate of fourth quarter growth today to minus 0.1%, annualized, from a previous estimate of zero. The change was the result of two new, offsetting pieces of information: a smaller than expected rise in non-automotive wholesale inventories in October, and an increase to motor vehicle assembly schedules for the fourth quarter, implying higher automotive inventories.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/12/11/macroeconomic-advisers-economy-now-shrinking/
     
  4. Concerned citizen

    Concerned citizen New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is simple, the money I was going to spend at the mall or eating out is now in my gas tank as I have to drive to get my kids to school and just basic errands, so when restraints are going out of business and the Dems want to raise taxes, we will be in a major depression, nice!
     
  5. Dr House

    Dr House New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA Hometown: Arecibo, PR Ideology: Libera
    Of course people are unhappy. We've been over-spending for decades, the market is correcting itself and it's squeezing millions of people who've grown fat and happy earning 30 grand a year and spending 40.

    That's what happens when economic growth is driven by debt-fueled consumption, and that's what our Keynesian fiscal policy has bred.

    -Dr House [​IMG]
     
  6. cigarscool

    cigarscool New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Theres a difference between taking money off the table and trillion dollar debts, but it was taken off the table and placed in envelopes called no-bid contracts.
     
  7. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    It won't work that way at all... and bad economic conditions very similar to these were turned around VERY SUCCESSFULLY in the recent past by former President Clinton.

    President Clinton took over a terrible economy from President Bush #1. In fact Bush #1 got stuck with the economy breaking deficit from President Reagan and that was exactly why Bush #1 went one term and out. I remember the Bush economic news stories like it was yesterday.

    Two major things. Stop the waterfall of money hemorrhaging out in the grand lie, Nation Building occupation of a foreign country. You can't throw $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH down the toilet and NOT build up an economy killing deficit.

    Keep with the Clinton catch phrase "It's the economy stupid" and look at any available streamlining like was done with Welfare Reform etc. Add to that the fact that the military doesn't have to be of "occupying" size when you're not occupying entire countries playing unpaid World Police... and let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

    Things CAN get better than they are if we just quit prolonging the same stupid things. In fact I would bet oil prices would drop a decent amount just because we were out of the region taking our bazaar, we must control other countries & their religious groups attitude. It's a proven fact instability always has a negative effect on oil prices.
     
  8. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Stupid beyond belief. :D

    Clinton did NOTHING to affect the economy, with the single exception of Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - estimated hit to the economy from this is $21 billion/year.
     
  9. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Econ does well, bush is President its all him

    Clinton does well, Pres has nothing to do with it

    Econ does bad, Bush has nothing to do with it

    Gosh you just cant loose with that logic....
     
  10. foggedinn

    foggedinn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the U.S. military budget were cut by 80% tomorrow, we would still be spending more on our military than any other country in the world.

    The war being waged against us is primarily economic in nature. We would be way ahead of the game if the W had only listened to his own campaign rhetoric against nation building. Out spending our enemies by ten thousand to one just to achieve stalemate is not the way to win an economic war.

    OBL and company sucker punched us with the specific intent of making us mad. It worked. They suckered us into an untenable situation, which after more than five years, still has no clear definition of what victory is. We won't leave until we achieve that ill defined victory.(a stabile Iraq?) Yet it's our presence there as much as anything else that maintains the instability. Catch-22.

    I don't believe that the administration is being forthright with the public about the true economic costs of Iraq/Afganistan. However robust anyone may believe that the U.S. economy is, it can't bare the costs of this war indifinitely.
     
  11. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The defintion of victory has been spoken many times - it is getting to the point where Iraq can stand on it's own with a reasonable chance to survive as a democratic nation - because appeasers can't deal with that, they do what they do best about iraq - pretend and make believe. Also reducing the iraq war to merely nation-building either demonstrates colossal ignorance of the bigger picture, or is just a giant straw man.
     
  12. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Please tell me, exactly which Democrat policy do you think will improve the American Economy?

    As for the "never ending war" story, all wars inevitably end.

    Things like Welfare and Universal Healthcare are FOREVER.

    If you don't think we can afford to spend 12 billion a month in Iraq, consider that we are already spending 238 billion a month at home - Universal Healthcare would make the Iraq war look like a Fiscally bearable investment in comparison.

    We spent 61% of our '07 budget taking care of Americans here at home, how high do you think that percentage should go? 65%, 75%, 100%?

    Do you have the slightest concept of how UH will affect our budget or the Economy?
     
  13. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA

    Well the simple fact is we can't afford to spend $12,000,000,000 dollars per month on a occupation of a foriegn country all built on lies, tricks and deception. That's certainly, absolutely not something that should be bleeding away huge amounts of American tax dollars and building up a very serious economy killing deficit!

    As far as entitlement programs you're damn straight things like Social Security & Medicare should be shored up until the Boomers get through the system... had the fund not been raided over & over there would be no problem with it at all now. Welfare is something that was radically cut back under the Clinton administration (that I agreed with) and the much shorter term safety net that remains for mothers & young children is adequate.

    As far as Universal Heathcare the whole goal of that is for EVERYONE to pay LESS OVERALL (taxes & heathcare costs combined). Universal Healthcare is really even more focused at stopping the skyrocketing premiums and co-pays with less overall coverage than it even is about seeing to it everyone is insured.
     
  14. foggedinn

    foggedinn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    12 billion a month is the straw man. It's 5 times that if it's a nickel.
     
  15. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, for 2007, it was $14.16 Bn a month, or $170 Bn for the year, which, when adjusted for inflation, is the LOWEST we EVER spent on any war in the entire 20th Century. For instance, WWII cost us $288 Bn, in 1945 dollars, which equates to $6.4 Bn (average) for the 45 months of the war, or in 2007 dollars, $74.69 Bn per month. WWI cost us $22,625,253,000 for our 17 month participation, or $1,330,897,235 per month in 1918 dollars, or $21,349,355,417 per month in 2007 dollars.

    It's long past time people quit crying about "the war is costing too much". It's a Red Herring argument, that has no basis in reality.
     
Loading...

Share This Page