response 87 of 536:

Sep 30 17:35 UTC 2003

You really are dense, if not mentally blind, klg. The site I gave shows
clearly that unemployment went from 4.1% on 1 Jan 01 to 6.1% on 1 Aug 03.
The numbers you are only willing to look at are local monthly blips in the
rate - the "noise" in the data - not the overall effect of the miserable
Bush economic policies over his term in office.

response 91 of 536:

Sep 30 20:24 UTC 2003

In a combination of your "the current crop has no claim on the military" and
"a vote for the 'out' party is a 'no' for the 'in' party", I think that I
have a lot of conservative (for religious reasons) relatives who may be
switching to the Democratic ticket because of the reservists in the family.
Obviously, reservists can't expect complete safety from being called up, but
when GWB has the troops holding down two countries already and is
saber-rattling at at least three more (Syria, Iran, NK), the likelihood of
a reservist dying gets to be much much higher than the likelihood they had
in mind when they signed up.  Already our forces are strained, high school
recruiters are worried, reservists and National Guardsmen are dying, and
nobody knows when their family members are going to come home--I'd say the
Dems can make a pretty strong case that Bush has misused the military.

response 93 of 536:

Sep 30 22:56 UTC 2003

We all know what the democratic platform is (in general).  Yes the president
has run up the defecit, but it was due to the condition the economy was in
when he was elected.  He had to give back money to the people via tax cuts,
or we would have been in one hell of a recession.

response 95 of 536:

Oct 1 00:13 UTC 2003

Kulak.

response 99 of 536:

Oct 1 01:24 UTC 2003

I consider the government spending more than its income to be equivalent
to "printing more money", even though the money is created through debt. 
The effect is similar - there is more money in circulation without a
growth in collateral. 

response 101 of 536:

Oct 1 01:49 UTC 2003

Answer:  "#94 (rcurl):  I question that. Why would we be in more of a 
recession than we are now? The *recession*, such as it is, began after 
Bush took office.  The tax cuts also do not seem to have had any 
important effect, probably because they gave most of the money to the 
rich, who don't spend it the way money given to the lower end of the pay 
scale gets spent. Also, tax cuts are just another euphamism for the 
*government printing more money*. "

Question:  How many untruths is Mr. rcurl able to stuff into one 
response?


Furthermore, Mr. rcurl, it is rather well-documented that the recession 
for which you blame Mr. Bush was well under-way during the Clinton 
presidency.  Also, we believe there was that matter of September 11 - 
or, perhaps, you are a adherent of the Germanic belief that the attacks 
were planned under the direction of Mr. Bush.

All-in-all, Mr. rcurl, we find your arguments rather disappointing, to 
say the least.  Do try to improve.  Thank you.

response 103 of 536:

Oct 1 02:28 UTC 2003

I've said it once and I'll say it again:  Bush is not responsible
for the sudden disappearance of the surplus.  The surplus was a
fiction based on the continuation of the bubble economy; when the
bubble burst, the surplus disappeared with it.  Bush had nothing
to do with that.

The bubble economy was at least partly due to the shenanigans of
promoters of stocks with no visible means of turning a profit
(which, remarkably, people bought anyway) and outright crooks
like Kenneth Lay.  Clinton has to bear some of the blame (yes,
I said BLAME) for this; the loose standards in the Oval Office
hardly made him an effective spokesman for tight accounting
and disclosure requirements.  But the worst was yet to come...

On the other hand, Bush is clearly in the pocket of Kenneth Lay
and his corporate ilk.  The only cure for the economy lies in
fairness and transparency, and the only power I see going after
the miscreants right now is Elliot Spitzer.  People are still
afraid (justifiably) of having all their hard earned money
disappear into the pocket of some scammer or self-dealing
corporate CEO; to really get things cleaned up so we can go
on, we need real watchdogs in Washington.  Bush is never,
ever going to do this because it means turning on his main
supporters and the source of his own fortune.  He IS the
problem, and he's gotta go.

response 105 of 536:

Oct 1 04:41 UTC 2003

One of the reasons for the tax cuts, and to some extent the war too, was
to avert deflation, which was being threatened. Acts to avert deflation
are by their very nature acts to bolster inflation. Which is what increasing
the money supply does. 

response 107 of 536:

Oct 1 16:18 UTC 2003

Thank you, Mr. Keynes.  But you ought really to more carefully examine 
the extent to which the tax reductions (via the creation of the new 10% 
bracket, elimination of the marriage penalty, and expansion of the 
child care credit - for examples) have drastically reduced the tax 
burden upon the tax-paying lower & middle income groups.  
(Additionally, you may wish to consider the facts that (1) the tax 
changes had to be negotiated with anti-tax reduction Democrats who had 
significant input on the final version and (2) the tax reductions have 
actually increased the burden upon the "rich" in terms of the 
percentage of tax revenues taken in by the federal government.)

As for Mr. rcurl's lesson in economics (a.k.a., a little knowledge is a 
dangerous thing), increasing the money supply does not necessarily 
result in inflation, if, for example, output expands at an equal or 
greater rate.

response 109 of 536:

Oct 1 19:47 UTC 2003

resp:98 - When the Fed buys treasury bonds, where do they get the money 
to do that? Think about it. If they were buying bonds from you, they 
would write you a check for the amount the bonds are worth. Do you 
think that money comes out of some "Fed checking account"?  Trust me, 
it doesnt. When the Fed writes a check for some bonds, they have just 
increased the money supply by the amount of the check. And since the 
Fed is part of the government, it is fair to say that the government 
has an effect on the money supply. 

resp:99 - You might consider the government debt as something that 
increases the money supply but I cant think of any economists who would 
agree with you. I see what you are getting at. But if the government 
werent spending that money, the people they are borrowing from probably 
would be. There is no change in the money supply from government 
spending. This doesnt mean that the tax cuts and deficit spending that 
is going on right now is OK. In fact, it is probably going to cause 
some long range economic damage. But the damage is different from the 
damage that could be caused by a huge increase in the money supply that 
you suggest has happened. 

resp:105 - Increases to the money supply do cause inflation. But I 
think that even the Bush folks know that inflation without growth is 
meaningless. I dont think the tax cuts were designed to cause inflation 
nor was the war. I mean, if that was the goal, they could get to it in 
much easier ways. Frankly, simply printing more money would do it but 
they could also put some pressure on the Fed.