What is that one Political Issue that is near and dear to your heart

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Incorrect.

Loose money policy, inflation, massive government spending increases, and massive government borrowing increases increased government revenue.

by 2004, our government was pulling in more money than it was under Clinton. That was before the bad inflation. course the chart im looking at also includes state and local governments... but still.

Besides, inflation has very little to do with anything if wages aren't rising proportionately within our own country, other than increased sales tax i suppose.

Plus you have to consider that our economy was rather hammered after 9/11.

But poor congressional oversight over the banking industry has definately left us in a poor spot going into the next presidency, i dont see how raising taxes is avoidable.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

by 2004, our government was pulling in more money than it was under Clinton. That was before the bad inflation. course the chart im looking at also includes state and local governments... but still.

Besides, inflation has very little to do with anything if wages aren't rising proportionately within our own country, other than increased sales tax i suppose.

Plus you have to consider that our economy was rather hammered after 9/11.

But poor congressional oversight over the banking industry has definately left us in a poor spot going into the next presidency, i dont see how raising taxes is avoidable.

I'm not referring to price inflation, I'm referring to inflation of the money supply. Greenspan is initially at fault for it, but the Treasury under Bush bares the brunt of the blame. In 2000 when Bush took office, there was roughly $4 trillion in currency in circulation. In 2008 there is $8 trillion. Add to that the "money" that has been created out of thin air from the loose credit market.

When people are buying things with money they don't have (credit cards, mortgages, HELOCS), it drives the economy. Business gets to book that as income, businesses pay their employees with that income, and while government gets to tax all of it.... but the money was created from thin air.

The problem is, we've reached Peak Credit and that's why everything is coming apart today.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I'm not referring to price inflation, I'm referring to inflation of the money supply. Greenspan is initially at fault for it, but the Treasury under Bush bares the brunt of the blame. In 2000 when Bush took office, there was roughly $4 trillion in currency in circulation. In 2008 there is $8 trillion. Add to that the "money" that has been created out of thin air from the loose credit market.

When people are buying things with money they don't have (credit cards, mortgages, HELOCS), it drives the economy. Business gets to book that as income, businesses pay their employees with that income, and while government gets to tax all of it.... but the money was created from thin air.

The problem is, we've reached Peak Credit and that's why everything is coming apart today.

Perhaps you will want to go look at Bill Clintons strategy regarding the economy then. You might be plesantly suprised.

The only difference is that Bill inherited a strengthening economy from Bush Sr. as well as the framework for surpluses, whereas bush inherited a weakening economy that was badly hurt by 9/11 and compounded further by poor congressional oversight of the finances, which is, of course at least somewhat the fault of his administration and others.

[Drew Dowdell]

Perhaps you will want to go look at Bill Clintons strategy regarding the economy then. You might be plesantly suprised.

The only difference is that Bill inherited a strengthening economy from Bush Sr. as well as the framework for surpluses, whereas bush inherited a weakening economy that was badly hurt by 9/11 and compounded further by poor congressional oversight of the finances, which is, of course at least somewhat the fault of his administration and others.

Bank deregulation, more specifically the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act (loose money policy)

Low interest rate, asked for by Clinton, provided by Greenspan (loose money policy)

Raised taxes and the minimum wage (not sure which side you're arguing with on this one)

Where I'm going with this is, the financial changes made under Clinton and Bush 41 bubbled up, boiled over, and exploded in Bush 43's face. Bush wasn't the cause of the fire, but he's done nothing but add gasoline, with the help of Greenspan, Bernake, and Paulson.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Bank deregulation, more specifically the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act (loose money policy)

Low interest rate, asked for by Clinton, provided by Greenspan (loose money policy)

Raised taxes and the minimum wage (not sure which side you're arguing with on this one)

Where I'm going with this is, the financial changes made under Clinton and Bush 41 bubbled up, boiled over, and exploded in Bush 43's face. Bush wasn't the cause of the fire, but he's done nothing but add gasoline, with the help of Greenspan, Bernake, and Paulson.

I agree that Bush 43 inherited a bad problem, and blame definitely lies within the fed at some levels. However i think many of these "stimulus packages" the constant band-aids that his administration used to keep prodding the economy along, has led to... well now. We have, essentially, a maimed long overdue economic cycle that he has managed to keep somewhat alive. Our economy needed to have gone into recession a few years ago. That would have cooled off the housing markets and the finance markets. We would likely be starting to emerge from it by now stronger than we were.

This just adds to my belief that government intervention in the economy is a bad thing (usually). It led to the 70s and 80s thanks to the framework laid down by JFK/LBJ, and now its leading to... well now.

::edit:: i come from a generation after the 70s and 80s, so all i know of it is heresay and what i have read about it. That will of course leave my views on the subject to seen differently than from someone who actually lived through it.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

Some government intervention is fine and necessary. Government intervention for the greed or in the case of stupidity is bad.

Mark my words, the only smart thing Clinton did in economic policy was raise taxes during an economic upswing. Everything else was to service the financial elite. Bush 43 has continued this "tradition".

[Oracle of Delphi]

Personally, I'm sick of the Clinton's and the Bush's. I need a change in President, and McCain is not it

[loki]

Some government intervention is fine and necessary. Government intervention for the greed or in the case of stupidity is bad.

can't the American dream be deemed "greedy"?

[capriceman]

Well your against the Gun Control Act of 19 thirty something then.

and how on earth are you going to hold a .308 automatic still?

Gun control Act of 1968

Which is similar to the Nazi gun control act of 1938.

Well I will admit I am Hypocritical and i have several guns not registered because they are stolen government property... HK5 cough*

But I tell you guys a lot but not all... there is some stuff that allows me to own them and most of my autos are registered.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Gun control Act of 1968

Which is similar to the Nazi gun control act of 1938.

Well I will admit I am Hypocritical and i have several guns not registered because they are stolen government property... HK5 cough*

But I tell you guys a lot but not all... there is some stuff that allows me to own them and most of my autos are registered.

D'oh! your right, but they did require registration of machine guns in the National Firearms Act of 1934.

my favorite "machine gun" law has to be DCs, which states that any weapon that CAN THEORETICALLY accept more than 10 rounds is a machine gun.

And its still legal to sell or buy fully automatic guns in most states. But since there is only a limited supply of them, they are very very costly to do so.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I'm not referring to price inflation, I'm referring to inflation of the money supply. Greenspan is initially at fault for it, but the Treasury under Bush bares the brunt of the blame. In 2000 when Bush took office, there was roughly $4 trillion in currency in circulation. In 2008 there is $8 trillion. Add to that the "money" that has been created out of thin air from the loose credit market.

I finally managed to dig up a long term chart of money supplies.

The money supply nearly doubled under the Clinton era... so your argument is moot.

It would appear as though Bush era money supplies are just following the same line Clinton era ones were (just with lower taxes to accompany them).

Perhaps it is contribution to inflation (And im quite sure it is), but the fact remains that it also doubled under Clinton era which is/was largely though to be a strong economy era.

This seems to reflect that our current predicament was emplaced by Clinton, and handled incorrectly by the Fed under the Bush administration (although i believe the fed tends to act rather independently anyways).

Edited September 17, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

Without even having to look up the charts, I can extrapolate from your statement that currency supply was about $2 trillion dollars at the beginning of Clinton's term (seems low, but we'll work with it). Now, rather than looking at percentages, look at total dollar amounts. Currency increased by $2 trillion dollars under Clinton and $4 trillion under Bush, that's twice as much in the same amount of time. But that's just currency.

Starting under Clinton, but really took off under Bush, the credit market exploded. You couldn't let your dog run loose for fear it would come home with a mortgage. Mortgage companies were letting you borrow up to 125% of the value of your home and then make only interest payments. Astonishingly, there are auto lenders that would let you have a loan at 125% of the value of your car.... a depreciating asset!! All of this was "made up" money. It didn't exist, yet companies and individuals got to book it as income. The government taxed that income.

This is where the government's increased tax revenue came from..... NOT Bush's tax cuts.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Without even having to look up the charts, I can extrapolate from your statement that currency supply was about $2 trillion dollars at the beginning of Clinton's term (seems low, but we'll work with it). Now, rather than looking at percentages, look at total dollar amounts. Currency increased by $2 trillion dollars under Clinton and $4 trillion under Bush, that's twice as much in the same amount of time. But that's just currency.

Starting under Clinton, but really took off under Bush, the credit market exploded. You couldn't let your dog run loose for fear it would come home with a mortgage. Mortgage companies were letting you borrow up to 125% of the value of your home and then make only interest payments. Astonishingly, there are auto lenders that would let you have a loan at 125% of the value of your car.... a depreciating asset!! All of this was "made up" money. It didn't exist, yet companies and individuals got to book it as income. The government taxed that income.

This is where the government's increased tax revenue came from..... NOT Bush's tax cuts.

Maybe all of that was to hide the fact that our entire economy has been outsourced.

"lipstick on a pig"

[CARBIZ]

Maybe all of that was to hide the fact that our entire economy has been outsourced.

"lipstick on a pig"

I have been saying this for years: we cannot thrive in nations THAT BUILD NOTHING. Wallstreet produces NOTHING. You cannot eat paper. I've heard the argument that a sound investment/banking community is necessary for a modern economy. No doubt that is true, but who defines what a 'sound investment/banking community' is?

I have little respect for accountants OR lawyers. Their professions are based on BS, plain and simple. The dance that the private sector/governments and the banking community perform for us is all smoke and mirrors.

There is something intrinsicely wrong with a country (or countries) whose top earners are all lawyers, advisors and paper pushers. The end is always the same: the little guy (taxpayers) pay and the fat cats retire to the Hamptons.

Bricks and mortar. Back to the basics, I say. Everything else is pie in the sky.

[A Horse With No Name]

I have been saying this for years: we cannot thrive in nations THAT BUILD NOTHING. Wallstreet produces NOTHING. You cannot eat paper. I've heard the argument that a sound investment/banking community is necessary for a modern economy. No doubt that is true, but who defines what a 'sound investment/banking community' is?

I have little respect for accountants OR lawyers. Their professions are based on BS, plain and simple. The dance that the private sector/governments and the banking community perform for us is all smoke and mirrors.

There is something intrinsicely wrong with a country (or countries) whose top earners are all lawyers, advisors and paper pushers. The end is always the same: the little guy (taxpayers) pay and the fat cats retire to the Hamptons.

Bricks and mortar. Back to the basics, I say. Everything else is pie in the sky.

+1

Chris

[pow]

Nearest and dearest to my heart... at the moment, that would be CA's Prop 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry.