Democrats Could "Help Destroy Economy"

"jump start"?

Maybe they should take off their tin foil hats and join the rest of the world.

 

Maybe these are the same "conservative analyst" who advised Bush on Iraq and WMD's.

 

Ummh! how can carpo and mitch take the news off Republicans???

answer:Fearmonger!

what ever happened to taking responsibility and accountability ..Republicans never had it and it shows with all these straw men ...soooooo desperate.

GiZmo flush em down...way downhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WofFb_eOxxA

 

Here we go again, another debate about the difference between republicans and democrats. You know what, you people are really delusional.

 

Maybe this is the same "conservative economist" who howled that Clinton's economic program would quickly send America into a severe recession. :laugh:

Personally, I could use a little more of that right now...

 

You mean the one that began two quarters before Bush took office? That would probably be the one, although in truth, it wasn't a recession, because none of the quarters of severe economic downturn were consecutive. But, we don't need more of those economic downturns, no.

Most things take 18 months or so to have an impact on the economy. (Although some will have a more immediate impact.) If they do this, it will devastate our economy, and it will be just in time for the next round of elections, at which point they can blame it all onBush. Politics at its finest.

 

How about an enconomy free of the ideals of both parties? What a novel idea.

 

Barbarian observes:
Maybe this is the same "conservative economist" who howled that Clinton's economic program would quickly send America into a severe recession. :laugh:

Personally, I could use a little more of that right now...

No, I mean the "severe recession" that never happened. Instead, we got the longest peacetime expansion in history. And a reduction in the deficit every year. Bush bungled the downturn by trying to spend his way out of it. And so it became worse and worse. This is why real earnings and employment during the Bush years look so bad, compared to those of the Clinton years.

But instead of taking responsibility, the Bush enablers fall back on "It's all Clinton's fault."©

 

Well, at least one person has an inkling of an idea of reality...

 

Bush has already destroyed the economy by cutting taxes in the face of an aggressive war.

 

Until the federal government actually balances its budget(not the fake balanced budget during the Clinton administration that used the Social Security surplus to cover up the real deficit) the economy will continue to be hamstrung.

 

While I'll not defend President Bush or bash him, either, I do have one question aboiut teh economy. If the economy is so badly destroyed (never mind that we certainly do have and have had out-of-control government spending longer than my adult life, and virtually all the time at that, and I'm 58; and had Graham/Rudman/Hollings really been followed, today our country would have a close to balanced budget, even with military spending, instead of merely being a slogan), how is it that the Dow-Jones just hit an all time high? FTR, who do you think owns publically traded and held companies? People do - not government. When government 'owns' them, you wind up with 'Conrail', and CITGO.

Ed

 

That's all changing with the public private partnerships.

 

If you factor inflation, the stock market in real terms is still 20 percent lower than it was 6 years ago. In real terms (factoring inflation), the stock market has grown only 3 percent annually over the last 10 years. This is per Morningstar's excellent stock analyst Pat Dorsey.

 

Over time if one can beat inflation by 3% annually that would be a solid investment return. Not fabulous but solid.

 

What happened to that lynchpin of Republican conservative politics, the balanced budget? I suppose you didn't support Regan on that point.