wskin44 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I only read the Economist and Wall Street research for my economic statistics and projections. Good, so project for me when our children are going to finally be brought to their knees because of the massive debt we are leaving them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Good, so project for me when our children are going to finally be brought to their knees because of the massive debt we are leaving them. May 5, 2046. Cinco de Mayo will never be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 May 5, 2046. Cinco de Mayo will never be the same. Damn, right about when we retire, right Iheart? Uh oh :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I'll put it this way IHeart. The current economy has been doing very well since late 2003. We all saw how the Dow shot up and how the unemployment rate fell during 2004. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were added. Once again, this all came with some media caveat.During the Clinton years, any bad Clinton news was followed with the BUT the economy is good caveat, giving any story reflecting badly on him positive spin, while any good news during the Bush administration has negative news. Now granted the last 5 years have been incredibly challenging, especially the post 9/11 world. Despite the good news though during the past 5 years, the whole doom and gloom mantra in the media has remained, contrasting to the 1990s when bad things happened (terror attacks on our assets overseas) the BUT the economy is doing good mantra applied. Now this is all based on my personal observations over the past 15 years. I could be completely wrong and I am sure Chom is right now deconstructing paragraph by paragraph my little summary, however that is the perception I have from the past 15 years. Everything is great when Clinton was elected to oh man we are F'D during the Bush 1 and Bush 2 years The problem with your perspective is that it is so short term. What did Bush do to avoid a deeper recession and get some good economic news? He cut taxes right? Is this what shortened a mild recession and created a mild recovery? I don't know for sure, but what I DO know is that the reduction in taxes was not matched by a reduction in expenditures so he borrowed the money in order to create a better short term economy. When will that borrowed money get paid back? Who will pay it? How much will it cost? What other priorities won't get paid for when the bill comes due? Once we know the answers to these questions then we can go back evaluate the real value and cost of the mild recovery of the past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Damn, right about when we retire, right Iheart?Uh oh :mad: Precisely, that's why I'm going to retire early and move to Mexico. We've had so much foreign indirect and direct investment there, that their economy should be booming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 May 5, 2046. Cinco de Mayo will never be the same. Let's see . . . in '46 I will be 94. I probably won't give a **** by then. So in '46 when our kids finally come to their senses and start leaving us out on the prarie the way the Indians left their old folks, instead of continuing to pay us all this social security and medical benefits that we voted for ourselves but left for them to pay, I probably won't even notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Precisely, that's why I'm going to retire early and move to Mexico. We've had so much foreign indirect and direct investment there, that their economy should be booming. Not to mention that you will be wanting to get a good real estate deal before all those ***** americans head south of the border to get away from the next ice age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Precisely, that's why I'm going to retire early and move to Mexico. We've had so much foreign indirect and direct investment there, that their economy should be booming. Yeah, but by then, the place'll be full of retired Gringos who're all standing around saying "Where'd everybody go?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Well, unfortunately (or fortunately) there is no law preventing the ignorant from voting. So you see, ignorance does have an effect on us all. Yes, the first thing I agreed with you on all day. Hell, look who our president is:doh: You know, a lob ball is supposed to have an arc when y ou throw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 If you want to see criticism of local government, watch local TV. If you want to see criticism of federal government, watch national TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I'll put it this way IHeart. The current economy has been doing very well since late 2003. We all saw how the Dow shot up and how the unemployment rate fell during 2004. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were added. Once again, this all came with some media caveat.During the Clinton years, any bad Clinton news was followed with the BUT the economy is good caveat, giving any story reflecting badly on him positive spin, while any good news during the Bush administration has negative news. Now granted the last 5 years have been incredibly challenging, especially the post 9/11 world. Despite the good news though during the past 5 years, the whole doom and gloom mantra in the media has remained, contrasting to the 1990s when bad things happened (terror attacks on our assets overseas) the BUT the economy is doing good mantra applied. Now this is all based on my personal observations over the past 15 years. I could be completely wrong and I am sure Chom is right now deconstructing paragraph by paragraph my little summary, however that is the perception I have from the past 15 years. Everything is great when Clinton was elected to oh man we are F'D during the Bush 1 and Bush 2 years ShF, your analysis is one sided, and I can use counter examples for everything you posted, but I don't feel like looking them up right now, just trust me when I say there is a lot of other things you neglected to bring up. What I am really suprised about is your thoughts on the economy. If you are comparing it to say, 96' maybe it is doing as WELL as in 96', but it is not even close to where we were in 96' in terms of spending, intrest rates, unemployment, etc. The reason for this is because we are on the back side of a mad mad spending spree. Look at how long the intrest rates were below 4%, almost for 4 years. During Clinton's years, the rate was above 7% for almost the entire time. This massive amount of money pumped into the system is what caused the recovery, standard econ. 101. Where the problem is now, is that we have to PAY for the massive amount of spending. Yes, it kept our economy afloat, but the rate has slowly been rising. We HAVE to raise the rate to curb inflation. You also have the housing market which has kept the market afloat, but that is going to burst and I bet Katrina causes it. To say that we are as good as 96' is correct, but also doesn't take into consideration the existing economic conditions, which are lying on the edge to begin with. For everything Greenspan has done, agreeing to a ludicrous supply side cuts was not the right answer. Correct would have been spending cuts to counter the tax break, but he want along with an already failed system, supply side tax cuts. Can we at least agree that supply side cuts are a complete joke? We are on the left side of the laffer curve, and any cuts mean a decrease in revenues, this should be painfully obvious to everyone now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 ShF, your analysis is one sided, and I can use counter examples for everything you posted, but I don't feel like looking them up right now, just trust me when I say there is a lot of other things you neglected to bring up.What I am really suprised about is your thoughts on the economy. If you are comparing it to say, 96' maybe it is doing as WELL as in 96', but it is not even close to where we were in 96' in terms of spending, intrest rates, unemployment, etc. The reason for this is because we are on the back side of a mad mad spending spree. Look at how long the intrest rates were below 4%, almost for 4 years. During Clinton's years, the rate was above 7% for almost the entire time. This massive amount of money pumped into the system is what caused the recovery, standard econ. 101. Where the problem is now, is that we have to PAY for the massive amount of spending. Yes, it kept our economy afloat, but the rate has slowly been rising. We HAVE to raise the rate to curb inflation. You also have the housing market which has kept the market afloat, but that is going to burst and I bet Katrina causes it. To say that we are as good as 96' is correct, but also doesn't take into consideration the existing economic conditions, which are lying on the edge to begin with. I never made the 1996 to 2005 comparision. There are many many factors involved in each boom, each of which I would rather not get into. And of course my argument is one sided, I prefaced it by saying its my perspective on things. The whole point of my unorganized rambling was to state that we live in a doom and gloom media age right now, where as in the 1990s everything was all roses Clearly, everything was not all roses in the 1990s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 If you want to see criticism of local government, watch local TV. You forget to mention you can also get crticizm on Fox News. It's funny, I am watching it now, and I think it is Hume, but I can't remember his name and Comes went through a 10 minute diatribe on the failures of the local and state government, and even had a "speculator" who layed out the RNC's talking points, with Hume. Then, they got on Comes and asked him who HE thought was to blame. You know what his answer was? "Well, I'm not going to play the name game, but if I was, I'd have to put it at the hells of the local and state governments"? It's too funny, I can't even make this stuff up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I never made the 1996 to 2005 comparision. There are many many factors involved in each boom, each of which I would rather not get into. No problem, I actually agree with you on the "state" of the economy, but they are two completely different economies, that's what I was trying to say. And of course my argument is one sided, I prefaced it by saying its my perspective on things. The whole point of my unorganized rambling was to state that we live in a doom and gloom media age right now, where as in the 1990s everything was all roses Clearly, everything was not all roses in the 1990s I think everything was pretty rosey in the 90's, everything seemed to be working great. There were things going on behind the scenes in the 90's, which the public wasn't really aware of, but even if we were, everyone was making money hand over fist, so they would have ignored it. It is amazing how rosey people can get when they're watching their stock portfolios double every two years. I personally think it was more of a money thing, not a political one. If it was Bush I instead of Clinton, I think the press would have been the same as far as their rosey picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 No problem, I actually agree with you on the "state" of the economy, but they are two completely different economies, that's what I was trying to say. One could actually argue that today's economy is fundamentally more sound than the economy in the mid to late 1990's. Hindsight is great, so we now know that the economy back then was overvalued, hence the subsequent dot com bust. Some things are out of the control of the president and Clinton was certainly on the sidelines during the dot com boom and bust, which is where he should have been. What's great about a market economy is that it will self correct itself, which we witnessed in early part of of this decade. Unfortunately for Bush and our country, the economy took another hit when 9/11 happened. I'm afraid it's going to take another hit because of Katrina. And that is sad for all Americans, whether you like Bush or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I think everything was pretty rosey in the 90's, everything seemed to be working great. There were things going on behind the scenes in the 90's, which the public wasn't really aware of, but even if we were, everyone was making money hand over fist, so they would have ignored it. It is amazing how rosey people can get when they're watching their stock portfolios double every two years. I personally think it was more of a money thing, not a political one. If it was Bush I instead of Clinton, I think the press would have been the same as far as their rosey picture. I think you just made my point real well. Things SEEMED great, and everyone WAS making money like it was grass. Why did things seem SO great though? Ask yourself that. And if it was Bush 1 instead of Clinton I do NOT think the media would have painted the same rosey picture. They would have gone after the fundamental flaws of the 1990s economy, as well as the looming terrorist threat, and would have responded to a CIA officer trying to whistleblow campaign finance corruption in the administration (apart from the Al Gore- chineese stuff we heard of) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Um, just an observation, here, I remember reports that "some analysts think the dot coms are overvalued" for years under Clinton. I remember people pointing out, for example, that while Wall Street was going gaga over Amazon, that the company had not had one single proffitable quarter in it's history. They got about as much attantion as (to use a more modern statement) the folks, today, who're saying Real Estate is overvalued. (And, I suspect, for the same reasons: The folks who're making money, and the Party in Power, don't care if it's real, as long as the bubble hasn't burst yet.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 No. Fox News is the only cable news organization that truly is fair and balanced. You have representation on all sides, whether it is Sean Hannity or Bill O' Reilly who are conservative or Alan Colmes and Geraldo Rivera who are liberal. Then you have news hosts like Chris Wallace and Brit Hume whose news programs are more traditional network type formats and are supposed to be neutral. And they do a great job of keeping it unbiased. Umm, you are aware that Bill O'Reily, Brit Hume, Neil Cavulto(sp?), Hannity& Colmes, are NOT NEWS PROGRAMS. They are just pundit banter-hour shows where guests get approx 2 mins a piece to scream out the party's greatest hits until they are cutoff for a commercial break. This is what irks me the most, is that people compare NEWS on network Television to Bill O' Reily on Fox, when it is like comparing Apples & Oranges. You COULD compare Crossfire with Hannity & Colmes, but not NEWS with Primetime Debate shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 Umm, you are aware that Bill O'Reily, Brit Hume, Neil Cavulto(sp?), Hannity& Colmes, are NOT NEWS PROGRAMS. They are just pundit banter-hour shows where guests get approx 2 mins a piece to scream out the party's greatest hits until they are cutoff for a commercial break.This is what irks me the most, is that people compare NEWS on network Television to Bill O' Reily on Fox, when it is like comparing Apples & Oranges. You COULD compare Crossfire with Hannity & Colmes, but not NEWS with Primetime Debate shows. Umm, read my post one more time. I pointed out that O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes were representing the conservative and liberal points of view. Nowhere did I say they were "traditional" news programs. On the contrary, their shows are designed to stir up the debate between both sides, like you said similar to CNN's old Crossfire show. But, I also pointed out that Chris Wallace and Brit Hume did have more traditional network news formats (not exactly the same, but similar). I don't think anyone is going to accuse Wallace of being a right wing conservative. As far as Hume is concerned, I honestly don't watch him. There's something about his delivery and style that rubs me the wrong way. The bottom line is, I think Fox News is more willing to represent both sides of an issue than is other network news organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I think you just made my point real well. Things SEEMED great, and everyone WAS making money like it was grass.Why did things seem SO great though? Ask yourself that. And if it was Bush 1 instead of Clinton I do NOT think the media would have painted the same rosey picture. They would have gone after the fundamental flaws of the 1990s economy, as well as the looming terrorist threat, and would have responded to a CIA officer trying to whistleblow campaign finance corruption in the administration (apart from the Al Gore- chineese stuff we heard of) ShF, it sounds like you are saying the 96 wasn't good because a bust was coming up 4 years later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Umm, read my post one more time. I pointed out that O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes were representing the conservative and liberal points of view. Nowhere did I say they were "traditional" news programs. On the contrary, their shows are designed to stir up the debate between both sides, like you said similar to CNN's old Crossfire show. Colmes represents the liberal point of view. :rotflmao: Colmes represents what Fox News wants yout to THINK the liberal point of view is. :doh: You are the perfect example of why I don't like Fox news. They take people and pump their ideology 24/7, while ignoring reality. Try going to these sites for the liberal point of view, then come back to me and tell me Colmes represents that. www.moveon.org www.commondreams.org www.democraticunderground.org Hell, why don't you go to the message boards at the democratic undergraound and tell them that Colmes represents them :laugh: On Fox news tonight, they had the presidents press conference. Here is the transcript. Q Scott, the reality at hand right now is that the President said that we still live in an unsettled world. This is an administration that has told us since 9/11 that it's not a matter of "if," but "when" that we could be struck by a terror attack and, obviously, other disasters that are the result of Mother Nature. So at this point, where is the accountability? Is the President prepared to say where this White House, where this administration went wrong in its response to Katrina? MR. McCLELLAN: You know, David, there are some that are interested in playing the blame game. The President is interested in solving problems and getting help to the people who need it. There will be a time -- Q Wait a minute. Is it a blame game when the President, himself, says that we remain at risk for either another catastrophe of this dimension, that's not manmade, or a terrorist attack? Isn't it incumbent upon this administration to immediately have accountability to find out what went wrong, when at any time this could happen again? MR. McCLELLAN: This is a massive federal response effort that we have underway. We've got to stay focused on helping those who are in need right now and help them rebuild their lives and get back up on their feet. It's a time of many challenges, enormous challenges. We've got to stay focused on the task at hand. That is what the President is doing. Now, in terms of addressing threats, we've made a lot of progress since the attacks of September 11th. And one of the most important things we're doing is staying on the offensive abroad. There are important priorities that we have to continue to address and we are working to address those priorities, too. But we have a major disaster that has occurred over a 90,000 square mile [sic] here in the United States. There are people -- Q Right. And there are people who want to know why this government couldn't respond -- MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. There are people who are suffering, and we've got to respond to their needs, and that's what we're going to keep our focus. Q So no one is prepared to say what went wrong? MR. McCLELLAN: We will look at back at the facts and we will get to the bottom of the facts and determine what went wrong and what went right. But right now -- Q Will the President support an outside investigation, or does he want to do it himself? MR. McCLELLAN: -- but, David, right now, we've got to continue helping the people in the region. Q Will he support an outside investigation -- Q But, Scott, more concretely, an officer of the Northern Command is quoted as saying that as early as the time Hurricane Katrina went through Florida and worked its way up to the Gulf, there was a massive military response ready to go, but that the President did not order it. It could have been ordered on Sunday, on Monday, on Tuesday -- the call didn't come. Why not? MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, let's point out a couple of things. There were a lot of assets that were deployed and pre-positioned prior to the hurricane hitting. And you have to look back -- Q These assets were deployed, but the order to use them never came. The Bataan was sitting off behind the hurricane. MR. McCLELLAN: I know these are all facts that you want to look at and want to determine what went wrong and what went right. I'm not prepared to agree with your assessment just there. There is a much larger picture here that we have to take a look at, and -- Q It's not mine, it's an officer in the Northern Command. MR. McCLELLAN: -- in terms of the President, the President issued disaster declarations ahead of time so that we could make sure we're fully mobilizing resources and pre-positioning them. But this was a hurricane of unprecedented magnitude. Q Right, but the military can't go into action without his order. MR. McCLELLAN: I'll be glad to talk to you about it, but I've got to have a chance to respond to -- Yes, Fox news didn't play this quip, instead they played one where an MSNBC reporter was "chastized" by McCllelan for playing the "blame game". :doh: MR. McCLELLAN: No, everybody watching this knows, David, that you're trying to engage in a blame game.Q I'm trying to engage? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Q I am trying to engage? MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct. Q That's a dodge BTW, the entire press conference is here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050907-2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Try going to these sites for the liberal point of view, then come back to me and tell me Colmes represents that. www.moveon.org www.commondreams.org www.democraticunderground.org : Liberal? Or Socialist/Communist??? Actually......does it even matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Liberal? Or Socialist/Communist???Actually......does it even matter? Nazi or Neo-con, same as well. Touche' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Nazi or Neo-con, same as well.Touche' No.....Chome Facist or Neo-Con No one would compare a legitimate form of government to Hitler.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 ShF, it sounds like you are saying the 96 wasn't good because a bust was coming up 4 years later? No no. What I am trying to say is a lot of things were ignored during the Clinton years because of how well the economy was doing. Corruption with campaign financing, and our NSA being an agent of oil companies being 2 of them Like I said, MY whole perception of the 1990s is, "Clinton did something bad BUT the economy is good" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.