Bush Says US Not Headed Into a Recession

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[john-the-author]

I have a keg of beer waiting for when I've got the address of his final resting place. Mind you, I'm going to filter it through my kidneys first.

 

[DesertPirate]

You do realize that any policies put into effect by a President take about 2 years to have any effect?

Don't think either of the Dems will have a good effect either. Every time in the last 36 years (since I was 15) the Dems claim they are going to raise taxes on the rich mine have gone up. I have yet to exceed $50K in a year

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What do you expect him to say, or any prez? The surest way for a prez to guarantee a recession is to deliver some econ version of "We're all gonna die! " Or put on a cardigan sweater and talk about a "national malaise."

Bottom line, anyone who takes their economic and finance cues from politicians of any stripe deserves whatever they get - good and hard.

 

[DesertPirate]

What do you expect him to say, or any prez? The surest way for a prez to guarantee a recession is to deliver some econ version of "We're all gonna die! " Or put on a cardigan sweater and talk about a "national malaise."

Bottom line, anyone who takes their economic and finance cues from politicians of any stripe deserves whatever they get - good and hard.

Try being in the service under Mr. "national malaise"

Better yet, get out in Feb. 80 and try to find a job

95% of that thundering herd of dumbass in Washington is lucky if they can spell economics

 

[3113]

Well, that's a relief. I'll put "we're not headed for a recession" right up there next to my "mission accomplished" banner.

 

[Lee Chambers]

What do you expect him to say, or any prez? The surest way for a prez to guarantee a recession is to deliver some econ version of "We're all gonna die! " Or put on a cardigan sweater and talk about a "national malaise."

Reading this I'm reminded of the scene from the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King when Denathor (sp?) screams out "Abandon your posts! Flee! Flee for your lives!" I couldn't help but laugh, then and now.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Reading this I'm reminded of the scene from the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King when Denathor (sp?) screams out "Abandon your posts! Flee! Flee for your lives!" I couldn't help but laugh, then and now.

Or "Holy Grail" when the killer rabbit appears: "Run away! Run away!"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

PS to my previous:

Oh and BTW - anyone who still believes that deficit spending on political public works boondoggles, tax "rebates," and all the other components of a so-called "stimulus" package will have any positive effect on the economy - or even that any pols even think it will rather than just having positive effects on their individual reelect chances thanks to the ignorance of the boobeoisie - probably also still believes that ethanol has something to do with "saving the planet" and acheiving "energy independence." Or that 20-somethings will get a positive return on the social security money that's being raked off from their paychecks.

 

[Lee Chambers]

Or "Holy Grail" when the killer rabbit appears: "Run away! Run away!"

I can definitely see Bush finishing up his announcement, walking behind the stage, looking at his top aide and muttering "We're so fucked."

 

[DesertPirate]

I can definitely see Bush finishing up his announcement, walking behind the stage, looking at his top aide and muttering "We're so fucked."

Kind of like Clinton in 2000?

 

[Lee Chambers]

Kind of like Clinton in 2000?

Nah, for Clinton it would be more like "Damn I'm glad I don't have to deal with this mess anymore."

 

[Lee Chambers]

PS to my previous:

Oh and BTW - anyone who still believes that deficit spending on political public works boondoggles, tax "rebates," and all the other components of a so-called "stimulus" package will have any positive effect on the economy - or even that any pols even think it will rather than just having positive effects on their individual reelect chances thanks to the ignorance of the boobeoisie - probably also still believes that ethanol has something to do with "saving the planet" and acheiving "energy independence." Or that 20-somethings will get a positive return on the social security money that's being raked off from their paychecks.

About as effective as that extra 30 days Congress worked so hard to get for people who's homes were about to be foreclosed on. Yep, an extra 30 days to move their shi-...I mean, "attempt to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement between the bank (read: loan shark) and the home owners."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I can definitely see Bush finishing up his announcement, walking behind the stage, looking at his top aide and muttering "We're so fucked."

Seriously, on the economy we're not necessarily so fucked, but if Congress keeps behaving the way they've been, and pardon my partisan slam but if one of the Dem candidates is elected and actually does on taxes what they say they're going to do, then we reallly will be fucked, and I mean that in all sincerity and not just as a partisan dig.

Frankly, it looks like we're heading for a replay of the 1970s stagflation, and that really is so fucked. God I remember that, and it was depressing. The cure was really painful, too - the recession of 1981-82, when Paul Volcker turned off the money spigot. The most surprising thing in the world was when it all turned around, because of Volcker's bitter medicine, and some major tax changes (which I won't specify because I've already invited enough partisan teeth-gnashing with this post, but will mention that the tax measure I'm referring to was passed with a lot of Dem votes).

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[cantdog]

What do you expect him to say, or any prez? The surest way for a prez to guarantee a recession is to deliver some econ version of "We're all gonna die! " Or put on a cardigan sweater and talk about a "national malaise."

Bottom line, anyone who takes their economic and finance cues from politicians of any stripe deserves whatever they get - good and hard.

That's what makes economists so untrustworthy. They all think they have influence in some magical way, by the Power of their very Word.

No one can tell us straight out, "The drain, there, boys? You see that? We're circling it." So you can't trust a damn thing they say.

 

[DesertPirate]

Frankly, it looks like we're heading for a replay of the 1970s stagflation, and that really is so fucked. God I remember that, and it was depressing. The cure was really painful, too - the recession of 1981-82, when Paul Volcker turned off the money spigot. The most surprising thing in the world was when it all turned around, because of Volcker's bitter medicine, and some major tax changes (which I won't specify because I've already invited enough partisan teeth-gnashing with this post, but will mention that the tax measure I'm referring to was passed with a lot of Dem votes).

I fear you are right

I wonder if McCain can forge that kind of coalition?
Then again I wonder if any of the Congresscritters on either side are smart enough

 

[sr71plt]

Seriously, on the economy we're not necessarily so fucked, but if Congress keeps behaving the way they've been, and pardon my partisan slam but if one of the Dem candidates is elected and actually does on taxes what they say they're going to do, then we reallly will be fucked, and I mean that in all sincerity and not just as a partisan dig.

Frankly, it looks like we're heading for a replay of the 1970s stagflation, and that really is so fucked. God I remember that, and it was depressing. The cure was really painful, too - the recession of 1981-82, when Paul Volcker turned off the money spigot. The most surprising thing in the world was when it all turned around, because of Volcker's bitter medicine, and some major tax changes (which I won't specify because I've already invited enough partisan teeth-gnashing with this post, but will mention that the tax measure I'm referring to was passed with a lot of Dem votes).

Naw, it's not Congress. It's the administration. Until they get their heads screwed on right and realize that they are flushing the U.S. economy down the Iraq drain, we will continue to hemorage. Imagine what we could have done repairing the infrastructure with all of those stupidly frittered-away resources.

 

[shereads]

A couple of weeks ago the Big W said the economy showed "increasing signs of weakness." I think it was Jon Stewart who said, "That's like saying the Titanic became increasingly moist after it struck the iceberg."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Naw, it's not Congress. It's the administration. Until they get their heads screwed on right and realize that they are flushing the U.S. economy down the Iraq drain, we will continue to hemorage. Imagine what we could have done repairing the infrastructure with all of those stupidly frittered-away resources.

Iraq is expensive, but it's just a drop in the ocean of the total US economy. Total military spending as a percentage of GDP is well within the range of the last couple decades. There may be lots of arguments against Iraq, and the expense is one, but it's a red herring to claim that it plays any decisive role in whether the US enjoys economic growth or recession, inflation or price stability.

 

[sr71plt]

Iraq is expensive, but it's just a drop in the ocean of the total US economy.

Whoa, I think you need to count those pennies again--and also take another look how deeply having all of those prime workers jerked out of the U.S. economy and stuck behind a rifle over there has affected and is affecting the U.S. economy.

Ideologues always have those tinted glasses to protect them from reality.

 

[cantdog]

Iraq is expensive, but it's just a drop in the ocean of the total US economy. Total military spending as a percentage of GDP is well within the range of the last couple decades. There may be lots of arguments against Iraq, and the expense is one, but it's a red herring to claim that it plays any decisive role in whether the US enjoys economic growth or recession, inflation or price stability.

It was intended to be a mitigation, Iraq. Prices respond to scarcity, and US control of the single largest oil dome in the world was seen as a way to keep energy prices low in America.

Along with making the fortune of a few dozen overprivileged men, that is.

Energy prices, specifically fuel prices, affect shipping costs. Shipping costs affect the price of everything. We failed, I think, to actually control Iraq to the extent necessary. Fuel rose anyway. The Wal-Mart model (not just Wal-Mart, but hundreds of other firms) is struck in the very root by rising costs for shipment. That kind of business success can't be done if shipping costs rise enough. You end up being wiser to supply your goods locally, after all.

But you are wrong, I think, to imagine that throwing away a trillion bucks has no effect. I think it was Eisenhower who said that every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The glory of empire is read out in a script of starving bodies.

 

[sr71plt]

But you are wrong, I think, to imagine that throwing away a trillion bucks has no effect. I think it was Eisenhower who said that every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The glory of empire is read out in a script of starving bodies.

A good reference. Somebody or the other being interviewed on CNN yesterday (he didn't attract my notice; what he said attracted my notice) noted that Eisenhower's administration was the last one to invest heavily in America's infrastructure--and that this neglect was catching up with us quickly.