Dems: We're losing the war and our economy stinks

[Controlled Chaos]

Dems: We're losing the war and our economy stinks

Dec 22, 2005

by Larry Elder

 

Democrats believe the "insurgents" are winning in Iraq.

 

The "idea that we're gonna win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

 

When asked, do you agree with Dean's statement, 59 percent of Democrats say yes. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans disagree. When asked if "setting a deadline to withdraw from Iraq would embolden the terrorists and invite new attacks on America," only 22 percent of Democrats agreed, with nearly 70 percent of Republicans believing a premature withdrawal would make things worse.

 

The Iraqis, apparently, failed to get the e-mail. According to a recent ABC News poll taken in Iraq, 70 percent of Iraqis say their own lives are "good," and 69 percent expect things in the country overall to improve in the next year. What about the security situation? More than 60 percent feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up from 40 percent in June 2004. And what about Iraq's Anbar region, the troubled area that includes Ramadi and Fallujah? Even there, Iraqis seem more optimistic than before. Nearly 60 percent of Anbar residents believe the latest elections will lead to a stable government.

 

On Dec. 15, 2005, about 11 million Iraqis voted for a permanent government. Even the Sunnis, who sat out in the past, turned up to vote this time.

 

Democrats think the economy is in a recession.

 

Forty-three percent of Americans, according to a recent American Research Group poll, said the economy was in a recession. While this poll did not break up responses by party line, rest assured the negative outlook comes from the Democratic Party. Only 7 percent of Democrats approve of the way Bush is handling the economy, versus 74 percent of Republicans.

 

But, a recession? Most economists define a recession as three consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product. Yet for the last 10 quarters, the economy grew at an average of more than 3 percent, with the latest quarter coming in at 4.3 percent. Inflation and interest rates remain low, with homeownership at an all-time high. Consumer confidence is up. Many businesses and corporations expect to increase hiring next year, anticipate more growth and remain optimistic about the future. Unemployment, coming in at 5 percent, remains lower than the average unemployment rate during the '70s, '80s and '90s.

 

Democrats consider President Bush "racially insensitive," if not downright racist.

 

According to a Time poll conducted shortly after Katrina, 54 percent of Democrats believe race and income level played a part in the hurricane response, compared to 17 percent of Republicans. The government's sluggish response to Katrina hurt Bush's standing with blacks. Now only 2 percent of blacks approve of the president's performance.

 

"George Bush doesn't care about black people," said rapper Kanye West during a nationally televised Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

 

CNN's Jack Cafferty also whipped out the race card, "Despite the many angles of this tragedy, and Lord knows there've been a lot of 'em in New Orleans, there is a great big elephant in the living room that the media seems content to ignore -- that would be, until now. . . . [W]e in the media are ignoring the fact that almost all of the victims in New Orleans are black and poor." CNN's Wolf Blitzer concurred," . . . o many of these people, almost all of them that we see, are so poor and they are so black . . . "

 

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, whose befuddled response to Katrina likely cost lives, said, "The more I think about it, definitely race played into this." Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan went even further. He speculated that someone intentionally blew up the levee to flood the black area: "I heard from a reliable source who saw a 25-foot-deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry."

 

But what about the facts? A just-released report by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals found whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city's population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city. Yet blacks make up 67.25 percent of the population and 59.1 percent of the deceased. Again, whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities.

 

Orleans Parish, which sustained substantial damage, was 28 percent white and 67 percent black. But the devastation included neighboring parishes and Mississippi counties that were overwhelmingly white. Those hardest hit -- besides Orleans Parish -- were St. Bernard Parish (88 percent white, 8 percent black), Jefferson Parish (70 percent white, 23 percent black), Plaquemines Parish (70 percent white, 23 percent black), St. Tammany Parish (87 percent white, 10 percent black), Hancock County (90 percent white, 7 percent black), Harrison County (73 percent white, 21 percent black), and Jackson County (75 percent white, 21 percent black).

 

Good news, Democrats. We've established that A) the Iraqis appear optimistic, B) our economy remains strong (even if you refuse to give a little credit to Bush's tax cuts), and C) our president is not a racist. Happy New Year.

[NorthSideSox72]

Dems: We're losing the war and our economy stinks

 

 

Good news, Democrats. We've established that A) the Iraqis appear optimistic, B) our economy remains strong (even if you refuse to give a little credit to Bush's tax cuts), and C) our president is not a racist. Happy New Year.

 

A) I would be too, since anything has to be better than Saddam's regime

B) This is true as well (though I believe it has almost nothing to do with tax cuts)

C) While I think he is stubborn and closed-minded on many fronts, I'd agree with this too. I don't think he is particularly racist at all. And I don't believe for a second that the Katrina response was effected by racial or economic status of the victims. The embarrassingly awful response was caused by many other things, some of which Bush deserves blame for.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It doesn't surprise me one bit that they'd say stuff like that. The Democrats have no message at all except Bush sucks so they have to point to how awful things are in the country. One little problem though, things are actually going rather well in the country.

 

The Economy keeps on growing and a good clip ( 4.1% GDP at last check ) and is cranking out anywhere from 150-250 thousand jobs a month consistently ( aside from the blip from Katrina ) with unemployment levels right about where they were during the 90's boom years.

 

Despite the left hanging on every single US soldier that dies in Iraq, they have their new government all the way in place now its getting better all the time and we should be able to start withdrawing troops this year.

 

As far as the Katrina mess goes I think most people are reasonable enough to see through this bogus claim of racism by Democratic politicians in the state. Its pretty clear to most that charges of racism are nothing more than a smokescreen to mask incompetence on the local level. Yes Bush deserves some blame but no more of it than Nagin and Blanco.

 

Mark my words the Democrats will pay for their behaivior in the mid terms.

[jasonxctf]

Bush's tax cuts didnt do a damn thing.

 

I ask a simple question... if we just experienced the "Clinton" recession (which is total bs) what did G HW Bush experience... the "Reagan" recession?

 

Somebody please let me know when the stock market gets back to where it was back in 2000. Then we can show a 0% gain in 5+ years.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Bush's tax cuts didnt do a damn thing.

 

I ask a simple question... if we just experienced the "Clinton" recession (which is total bs) what did G HW Bush experience... the "Reagan" recession?

 

Somebody please let me know when the stock market gets back to where it was back in 2000. Then we can show a 0% gain in 5+ years.

 

 

You dont do a lot of research to back up what you say do you? There isin't an economist out there who isin't saying the Bush tax cuts had a big hand in the economic growth we're experiencing now. I'll take their word over yours.

 

The Clinton recession was just exactly that as the economy began slowing while he was still in office and dipped into recession shortly after Bush took office. The recession under Bush Sr happened in 1990-1991 which is well after Reagan left office ( Jan 1989 ). That recession was his and his alone.

 

The Stock Market bubble popped under Clinton's watch also. That wasn't his fault though as it was rampant speculation on tech stocks that caused it.

 

Take a class called Econ 101 then come back here and post about economics.

[Balta1701]

You dont do a lot of research to back up what you say do you?  There isin't an economist out there who isin't saying the Bush tax cuts had a big hand in the economic growth we're experiencing now.  I'll take their word over yours.

Actually, while our other commenter didn't really back the point up well at all, I'd say that there's a fairly solid argument which could be made to say that the current economic growth is due more to the fact that the government is running massive deficits due to those tax cuts (a-la Keynesian economics) than it is just the fact that the tax cuts are happening. When the government dumps horrendous amounts of new money into the market, if inflation does not take off, you're almost guaranteed to generate growth. The problem is its almost impossible to sustain it through time, as the deficits will accumulate, forcing increases in the amount that people will need to be taxed and pushing the economy back into recession.

 

Furthermore, you could also note that there has been a huge lift for this economy from the housing sector over the last few years, a situation spurred on by the low interest rate environment which really became possible when the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress managed to balance the budget.

 

There are a lot of variables at play here. Yes, the Bush tax cuts were "important", but it's also important to ask how exactly they fit into the puzzle. Were they important because they stimulated the housing market, or was that solely due to the interest rate situation? Would they have had the same impact had they been associated with across the board spending reductions to keep the budget from being driven badly out of balance? What will be the future impact of the dramatic increases in the debt/deficit that we've seen during the Bush years, and it's associated inflationary pressures and increases in interest payments? My answer to all of those: I don't have a clue.

 

I think it's beyond the scope of anything I do to evaluate or unravel the various forcings in this situation (which is why I'm not getting a Ph.D. in economics...but if you want to talk about rocks, let's bring it). But I think you can't just go and say that every economist would say that the Bush Tax cuts were "important" without analyzing the full set of impacts, and even keeping an eye to the future.

[NorthSideSox72]

You dont do a lot of research to back up what you say do you?  There isin't an economist out there who isin't saying the Bush tax cuts had a big hand in the economic growth we're experiencing now.  I'll take their word over yours.

 

The Clinton recession was just exactly that as the economy began slowing while he was still in office and dipped into recession shortly after Bush took office.  The recession under Bush Sr happened in 1990-1991 which is well after Reagan left office ( Jan 1989 ).  That recession was his and his alone. 

 

The Stock Market bubble popped under Clinton's watch also.  That wasn't his fault though as it was rampant speculation on tech stocks that caused it. 

 

Take a class called Econ 101 then come back here and post about economics.

 

1. Recessions belong to no President. Presidents have little to do with the economy. Heck, government as a whole doesn't dictate the economy as much as many think it does. Bush's one-time burst tax refund was a good injection, but his cuts are not helping most people. I don't know what biased reports you have read, but I got the impression from the OMB reports that those cuts were only positive for a small number of people.

 

2. The stock market was WAY overbought and under-transparent in 2000, and needed serious correction. Take a look at a 20-year graph of any major index, especially compared to GDP growth, and you'll see the absurd spike in the latter half of the 90's. The recession was overdue, and should not be blamed on Clinton or Bush or any President. (on this we seem to somewhat agree)

 

3. As Balta points out, the real estate boom has been HUGE in providing households with the liquidity to buy the economy back into shape (beyond healthy levels, actually). Much larger in effect than the tax cuts. Ironically, the deep but short recession we had contibuted to the real estate boom, which contributed to the huge jump in consumer buying power, which took us out of the recession.

[Middle Buffalo]

Actually, while our other commenter didn't really back the point up well at all, I'd say that there's a fairly solid argument which could be made to say that the current economic growth is due more to the fact that the government is running massive deficits due to those tax cuts (a-la Keynesian economics) than it is just the fact that the tax cuts are happening.  When the government dumps horrendous amounts of new money into the market, if inflation does not take off, you're almost guaranteed to generate growth.  The problem is its almost impossible to sustain it through time, as the deficits will accumulate, forcing increases in the amount that people will need to be taxed and pushing the economy back into recession.

 

Furthermore, you could also note that there has been a huge lift for this economy from the housing sector over the last few years, a situation spurred on by the low interest rate environment which really became possible when the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress managed to balance the budget.

 

There are a lot of variables at play here.  Yes, the Bush tax cuts were "important", but it's also important to ask how exactly they fit into the puzzle.  Were they important because they stimulated the housing market, or was that solely due to the interest rate situation?  Would they have had the same impact had they been associated with across the board spending reductions to keep the budget from being driven badly out of balance?  What will be the future impact of the dramatic increases in the debt/deficit that we've seen during the Bush years, and it's associated inflationary pressures and increases in interest payments?  My answer to all of those:  I don't have a clue.

 

I think it's beyond the scope of anything I do to evaluate or unravel the various forcings in this situation (which is why I'm not getting a Ph.D. in economics...but if you want to talk about rocks, let's bring it).  But I think you can't just go and say that every economist would say that the Bush Tax cuts were "important" without analyzing the full set of impacts, and even keeping an eye to the future.

He said take a class in Econ 101. Showoff.

[southsider2k5]

Bush's tax cuts didnt do a damn thing.

 

I ask a simple question... if we just experienced the "Clinton" recession (which is total bs) what did G HW Bush experience... the "Reagan" recession?

 

Somebody please let me know when the stock market gets back to where it was back in 2000. Then we can show a 0% gain in 5+ years.

 

Would you care to explain how the Clinton recession is BS?

[NorthSideSox72]

Would you care to explain how the Clinton recession is BS?

 

Actually, I think both Nuke and I pretty much stated that the recession was caused by factors that Clinton had little control over (overbought markets, upside down tech sector finances, etc.).

 

But if jasoncx it saying that the recession itself was BS, then I don't know what he's talking about either.

Edited December 23, 2005 by NorthSideSox72

[southsider2k5]

Actually, I think both Nuke and I pretty much stated that the recession was caused by factors that Clinton had little control over (overbought markets, upside down tech sector finances, etc.).

 

But if jasoncx it saying that the recession itself was BS, then I don't know what he's talking about either.

 

I've always been a believer in the Fed taking responsibility for the good and the bad for the most part in an economy, unless the other branches of government actually do something to change the economy, such as tax code changes etc.

 

I took his comment as meaning that the recession was Bush's fault because it occured on his watch, and if that was the case, I was going to explain the velocity of money to him, and that it would be realistically impossible to blame Bush for the recession, which IMO was a long time coming. No one had the guts to prick the stock market bubble years before it burst, back when they really should have slowly started letting the air out of it. Remember the "irrational exhuberance" comments were made in 1997, so the higher ups knew about the overbought status of the equity markets, and yet no one dared stop the good times to insure a soft landing. Instead the markets got into ridiculous levels, especially the NASD, and when the bubble finally did let lose, the result was predictable. To be honest I am surprised things weren't MUCH worse, especially when 9-11 is factored in. I honestly believe the tax cuts were the right move at that time because a big shot of liquidity was HUGE for the economy, more than the cash even was the confidence factor going back into the jobs markets.

[NorthSideSox72]

I've always been a believer in the Fed taking responsibility for the good and the bad for the most part in an economy, unless the other branches of government actually do something to change the economy, such as tax code changes etc.

 

I took his comment as meaning that the recession was Bush's fault because it occured on his watch, and if that was the case, I was going to explain the velocity of money to him, and that it would be realistically impossible to blame Bush for the recession, which IMO was a long time coming.  No one had the guts to prick the stock market bubble years before it burst, back when they really should have slowly started letting the air out of it.  Remember the "irrational exhuberance" comments were made in 1997, so the higher ups knew about the overbought status of the equity markets, and yet no one dared stop the good times to insure a soft landing.  Instead the markets got into ridiculous levels, especially the NASD, and when the bubble finally did let lose, the result was predictable.  To be honest I am surprised things weren't MUCH worse, especially when 9-11 is factored in.  I honestly believe the tax cuts were the right move at that time because a big shot of liquidity was HUGE for the economy, more than the cash even was the confidence factor going back into the jobs markets.

 

I think the tax cuts probably had some material positive impact, but not nearly enough given the deficits t put us into. In any case, I think the real estate boom generated a lot more cash to encourage the recovery than any tax cuts did.

 

Actually, that would be a really great study - how much buying power was generated in the consumer markets by the tax cuts, versus the real estate boom? If I was in Grad school for a PhD in anything math or finance/econ or Poli Sci related, I'd be all over that.

Edited December 23, 2005 by NorthSideSox72

[kapkomet]

I think the tax cuts probably had some material positive impact, but not nearly enough given the deficits t put us into.  In any case, I think the real estate boom generated a lot more cash to encourage the recovery than any tax cuts did.

 

Actually, that would be a really great study - how much buying power was generated in the consumer markets by the tax cuts, versus the real estate boom?  If I was in Grad school for a PhD in anything math or finance/econ or Poli Sci related, I'd be all over that.

Money has to go somewhere... there's a huge disseration waiting on just that alone.

[Cknolls]

Bush's tax cuts didnt do a damn thing.

 

I ask a simple question... if we just experienced the "Clinton" recession (which is total bs) what did G HW Bush experience... the "Reagan" recession?

 

Somebody please let me know when the stock market gets back to where it was back in 2000. Then we can show a 0% gain in 5+ years.

 

 

I didn't know we measure recessions by dow levels.

[Cknolls]

Bush's tax cuts didnt do a damn thing.

 

I ask a simple question... if we just experienced the "Clinton" recession (which is total bs) what did G HW Bush experience... the "Reagan" recession?

 

Somebody please let me know when the stock market gets back to where it was back in 2000. Then we can show a 0% gain in 5+ years.

 

Revenues have increased dramatically since the tax cuts were enacted. States are seeing a likewise increase in revenues flowing into their treasuries. It must be because the DEMS voted against the tax cuts.

[Balta1701]

Revenues have increased dramatically since the tax cuts were enacted. States are seeing a likewise increase in revenues flowing into their treasuries. It must be because the DEMS voted against the tax cuts.

Dude, there are a ton of reasons why revenues have increased, and it's not just the tax cuts. First and foremost, the population of the U.S. has significantly increased since the first tax cuts (The working population grows by like 100,000-150,000 a month in this country on average). You increase the tax base by 5 million people, you're going to increase revenues.

 

Furthermore, yes revenues have increased, but at the same time, government expenditures have increased (as has the size of government). The more money government spends by hiring people/letting out contracts/pumping money into the economy, the more the government is going to get back in total revenues. This is Keynesian economics in a nutshell I believe...the government runs a deficit, and it causes economic activity to increase for a time because extra cash is being pumped into the economy. The risk with that sort of economic plan is not the short term, it's the long term - i.e. the Great Society & Vietnam war spending packages were directly linked to the stagflationary economy of the 70's.

 

You cannot just say "Oh revenues have increased, the tax cuts did their job" totally in a vacuum. If you were to do that, I could simply respond by saying "Yes, revenues have increased, but they have increased significantly less than the magnitude of the initial tax cuts, so we must be on the left hand side of the "Laffer curve"." No matter how much either side wants to narrow down the current economy to a slogan or a simple proof, it will not work. There are way too many variables at any given time - this doesn't even consider the dramatic rise in consumer debt encouraged by the fed, or the housing boom, or the refinancing boom, all of which may have dramatically increased revenues by creating jobs but all of which may significantly weaken as interest rates continue to rise (in part because of the massive tax cut related deficits)

[kapkomet]

Dude, there are a ton of reasons why revenues have increased, and it's not just the tax cuts.  First and foremost, the population of the U.S. has significantly increased since the first tax cuts (The working population grows by like 100,000-150,000 a month in this country on average).  You increase the tax base by 5 million people, you're going to increase revenues.

 

Furthermore, yes revenues have increased, but at the same time, government expenditures have increased (as has the size of government).  The more money government spends by hiring people/letting out contracts/pumping money into the economy, the more the government is going to get back in total revenues.  This is Keynesian economics in a nutshell I believe...the government runs a deficit, and it causes economic activity to increase for a time because extra cash is being pumped into the economy.  The risk with that sort of economic plan is not the short term, it's the long term - i.e. the Great Society & Vietnam war spending packages were directly linked to the stagflationary economy of the 70's.

 

You cannot just say "Oh revenues have increased, the tax cuts did their job" totally in a vacuum.  If you were to do that, I could simply respond by saying "Yes, revenues have increased, but they have increased significantly less than the magnitude of the initial tax cuts, so we must be on the left hand side of the "Laffer curve"."  No matter how much either side wants to narrow down the current economy to a slogan or a simple proof, it will not work.  There are way too many variables at any given time - this doesn't even consider the dramatic rise in consumer debt encouraged by the fed, or the housing boom, or the refinancing boom, all of which may have dramatically increased revenues by creating jobs but all of which may significantly weaken as interest rates continue to rise (in part because of the massive tax cut related deficits)

How many people fall off the payroll at the same time? And secondarily, I thought that there weren't REAL jobs being created? Now which is it?

 

No, tax cuts are not 100% the reason revenues are up, but they did provide a pretty good stimulus into the economy, and that's (at least partly - if not a majority of) why revenues are higher then they were estimated at the time of implementation. It's also why we have a higher GDP then 2.5%, which were the estimates at the time the tax cuts were enacted.

 

(waiting for Tex to jump in and scream about the deficits - which I agree are a problem)

Edited December 23, 2005 by kapkomet

[NorthSideSox72]

Revenues have increased dramatically since the tax cuts were enacted. States are seeing a likewise increase in revenues flowing into their treasuries. It must be because the DEMS voted against the tax cuts.

 

If you are going to interject your thoughts in a thread about economics, please provide some evidence that you understand it.

 

What "Revenues" are you referring to? Revenues for whom? By definition, tax cuts REDUCE government revenue. Do you mean revenue for some specific company? Your argument makes no sense.

 

Are you trying to say the government is getting revenues via some other method because of reducing tax on income? Because the increases in property tax revenue, at the state level, are in great part due to rapidly rising real estate valuations. And many states (and the feds) are adding all sorts of specific-use taxes all over the board. That's not a tax cut, it's a tax increase.

 

Or do you mean sales taxes? In which case, you're saying that the tax cuts have increased the overall tax burden. And besides, that argument doesn't make mathematical sense either: you reduce taxes by X, consumers spend X, the government gets some small percentage of X back.

 

If governments are seeing increased revenue into their treasuries, it's due to factors like increased taxation (other than income, if that was cut), increased real estate valuations, increased population, and to some extent, increase in sales tax revenues on greater buying by consumers. If your argument is that last one, then see the paragraph above this one.

 

 

Please enlighten us.

 

EDIT: Sorry Balta, your reply makes many of the same points, but it popped up after I started mine.

Edited December 23, 2005 by NorthSideSox72

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I think the tax cuts probably had some material positive impact, but not nearly enough given the deficits t put us into.  In any case, I think the real estate boom generated a lot more cash to encourage the recovery than any tax cuts did.

 

Actually, that would be a really great study - how much buying power was generated in the consumer markets by the tax cuts, versus the real estate boom?  If I was in Grad school for a PhD in anything math or finance/econ or Poli Sci related, I'd be all over that.

 

 

Tax cuts allow businesses to plow more money back into expanding their businesses ( e.g. hiring more people and expanding operations ). Additionally, individuals have more money to spend on whatever they spend money on and that helps increase economic activity as well. All this increased activity increases the tax base and that allows the government to more than make up for revenues lost fron reducing the tax rates.

 

To add to that, the "windfall for the rich" cuts in Capital Gains taxes and taxes on dividends encourage people to go ahead and book profits they would otherwise be reluctant to. This has the same effect of increasing the pool of people who are paying the tax and thusly increases revenues.

 

You have to look beyond the rhetoric of the left to the economic fact to see all this.

[southsider2k5]

Tax cuts allow businesses to plow more money back into expanding their businesses ( e.g. hiring more people and expanding operations ).  Additionally, individuals have more money to spend on whatever they spend money on and that helps increase economic activity as well.  All this increased activity increases the tax base and that allows the government to more than make up for revenues lost fron reducing the tax rates.

 

To add to that, the "windfall for the rich" cuts in Capital Gains taxes and taxes on dividends encourage people to go ahead and book profits they would otherwise be reluctant to.  This has the same effect of increasing the pool of people who are paying the tax and thusly increases revenues. 

 

You have to look beyond the rhetoric of the left to the economic fact to see all this.

 

And in the case of this recession, it probably prevented a lot more people from getting fired, and a lot more money in the economy, which prevented things from being a whole hell of a lot worse than they ended up being.

[NorthSideSox72]

Tax cuts allow businesses to plow more money back into expanding their businesses ( e.g. hiring more people and expanding operations ).  Additionally, individuals have more money to spend on whatever they spend money on and that helps increase economic activity as well.  All this increased activity increases the tax base and that allows the government to more than make up for revenues lost fron reducing the tax rates.

 

To add to that, the "windfall for the rich" cuts in Capital Gains taxes and taxes on dividends encourage people to go ahead and book profits they would otherwise be reluctant to.  This has the same effect of increasing the pool of people who are paying the tax and thusly increases revenues. 

 

You have to look beyond the rhetoric of the left to the economic fact to see all this.

 

Yes, tax cuts allow companies to plow-back more earnings, if they see fit (no guarantee of course). That point is correct. And yes, there is some increase in capital gains tax revenue. In the short run, that's positive.

 

But to "book profits" does not necessarily represent anything positive at all for the economy. In fact, better to NOT sell, stay in a stock, and keep that company growing. THEN they can hire more people and help the economy grow. People liquidate their equity assets to cash, stocks fall, companies lose equity and leverage, and people lose jobs. The result is the opposite of what you suggest, and has a negative impact in the long run. We're about to see a huge example of that, by the way, when the baby boomers start cashing in their investments in the next 10 years.

 

And what's funny about your post is, you seem to think people have been taken in by phantom "rhetoric". I don't categorize in the small-minded way that you seem to in your posts. If all you're going to do is write off people's statements by assinging them to a category (everyone not in agreement with you is a liberal) and/or being media zombies, then why bother contributing to the discussion at all?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And what's funny about your post is, you seem to think people have been taken in by phantom "rhetoric".  I don't categorize in the small-minded way that you seem to in your posts.  If all you're going to do is write off people's statements by assinging them to a category (everyone not in agreement with you is a liberal) and/or being media zombies, then why bother contributing to the discussion at all?

 

 

Im not writing off any individual persons statements per-se. Im attacking the party line of class/race warfare that dominates the mainstream of Democratic thought. All I see when I watch the news or read the paper is some prominent Democrat going on and on about rich vs poor, black vs white. Pitting American vs American is wrong and destructive and is worth attacking at every opportunity.

[Balta1701]

Im not writing off any individual persons statements per-se.  Im attacking the party line of class/race warfare that dominates the mainstream of Democratic thought.  All I see when I watch the news or read the paper is some prominent Democrat going on and on about rich vs poor,  black vs white.  Pitting American vs American is wrong and destructive and is worth attacking at every opportunity.

And yet it's somehow ok to direct the U.S. surveillance apparatus specifically at Islamic populations?

[southsideirish71]

And yet it's somehow ok to direct the U.S. surveillance apparatus specifically at Islamic populations?

 

 

Give me a break, they were sweeping for radiation levels. They werent kicking in the doors of their houses and frisking them. In post 9/11 I hope they are checking this.