Just how stupid is junior ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 17 2007, 10:32 AM) [snapback]376756[/snapback]</div>

At what point was I talking about the EU? Good job on trying to change the frame of this argument. You asked about our economy. I said it's scary. Bottom line is it's scary. Our budget deficit shrinking minutely in no way makes up for what's happened in the past six years.

Government spending is out of control, and until that gets reined in, we will not be in good financial shape. Funny how "conservatives" aren't "fiscal conservatives" anymore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jan 16 2007, 07:55 PM) [snapback]376629[/snapback]</div>

I'll second that emoticon

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 17 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]376769[/snapback]</div>

I was just looking for a close comparison for my own perspective of your view. I am still interested in how you view the EU's economy. My opinion is that it is much worse than ours.

Budget deficit shrinking minutely - a 16% decrease which what I think was last years change is minute? And what % has it come down in the past 3 years - is it not down by over half?

And I agree with you in terms of spending. Both parties should be shot. Now with the Dems in control it would be ironic if they pull in the financial dogs of spending - i doubt it. A tax increase in my opinion would be a disaster now. They should eliminate the AMT and my wish is for a flat tax.

What do you make of our stock market and its relationship with our economy. my thoughts are that it is a very good mirror of our current economy - you obviously differ. why?

And this whole thing is amazing given the recent spike in the cost of oil, the war in Iraq, and uncontrolled govt spending.

Thanks

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 17 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]376769[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, good article today in the NY Times on what that 1.2 trillion for the Iraq boondoggle could have been spent on. Would have gone a long ways towards alternative energy research, or health care, or whatever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business...amp;oref=slogin

Heck, it even might have made us safer from terrorists:

 

The economy is doing well because of the real estate boom. That was due to the lowering of ineterest rate under greenspan's guidance. Also the loosening of the lending standards by the banking industry(who just wanted to make profits but doling out loans left and right) allowed people to turn their home equity into atm's. This I think has led to the mirage of wealth, but will not last forever. And when the money and spending disappear, you will see unemployment rise again.

This occurred under Gdumbass's reign, but not because of him. Just like the internet boom occurred under Clinton, not because of him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 17 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]376774[/snapback]</div>

You are now changing the topic. Please return to my prior post.
thanks


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 17 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]376780[/snapback]</div>

I thought we are having a real estate bubble - you think its a boom now?? The interest rates have gone up for almost 3 years straingt - no? Lending standards are relatively unchanged if not tighter - at least at my banks - Citi and Chase.

I am assuming that Clinton was also blessed with a good economy by sheer luck and not because of him??

 

There are so many things at fault with Bush is pointless to try to relate the economy to anything he did. Use more concrete facts like:

Prohibiting funds for stem cell research.

Cancelling a Clinton program for hybrid car research and starting a subsidy for Hummers.

Not to mention the whole pre-emptive attack of Iraq for the wrong reasons.

I was listening to NPR this morning and it was inadvertently funny that Bush is having trouble finding a place to host his library. A commentator argued Nixon had trouble as well..

Cheers!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jan 17 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]376791[/snapback]</div>

We are getting off topic, I don't know who started all this booming economy business. So back to Bushisms and Bush stupidity... It looked like you were posting a comedy central link, but I couldn't get it to work.

Anyway, I posted one of what I thought was one of Bush's stupidest moments, when he was asked about resolving Government/Native American conflicts and he basically tried to define the word sovereign without much success. Surely there are more?

And another one of my favorite Bushisms, I wish one of you would explain what thought process was going on in Fearless Leader's head when opened mouth and said this:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/mu..._obgyn_love.mp3

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jan 17 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]376791[/snapback]</div>

You obfuscate. We are talking about the American economy which seems to be doing very well thankyou. Do you agree or disagree?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 17 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]376802[/snapback]</div>

I assume you agree that our economy is indeed strong and vibrant then?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 17 2007, 11:23 AM) [snapback]376810[/snapback]</div>

Yup, here's annother sign of a strong vibrant economy...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/16/real_estat...dex.htm?cnn=yes

NOT!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Jan 17 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]376818[/snapback]</div>

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...htm?chan=search

Mortgage defaults and foreclosures are just the beginning. The big bad problem is in CLOs or collateralized loan obligations. BusinessWeek believes that they're essentially propping up the entire U.S. economy which is looking more and more like a house of cards with each passing quarter. The U.S.'s biggest industry is debt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 17 2007, 11:54 AM) [snapback]376786[/snapback]</div>

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/hous...nquencies_x.htm

So will follow a recession. I know you probably need it to happen yesterday to believe in it, but worry, it's coming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Jan 17 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]376818[/snapback]</div>

There will always be stuff here and there - overall is the economy in your opinoin good or bad?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 17 2007, 12:23 PM) [snapback]376810[/snapback]</div>

Actually the topic has nothing to do with the economy. Unless your premise is that Bush is a genius because the stock market is up. If that's the case, state your argument that way, rather than trying to bait people.

Back on topic with a couple of my favorites
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(George W. Bush @ Feb 4 2005)</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(George W. Bush @ Sep 29 2000)</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 17 2007, 12:47 PM) [snapback]376839[/snapback]</div>

So you are predicting for the future - what about the current state of the economy - especially if your predictions do not come true.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan, 05:52 AM) [snapback]376720[/snapback]</div>

A perfect example of what I was talking about earlier.

Here is what Scientific American says about the WSJ editorial page:

"Reporters for the Wall Street Journal routinely distance themselves from the editorial page. Many of the paper's own reporters laugh or cringe at the anti-scientific posture of the editorials, and advise the rest of us simply not to read them. Nevertheless, the consequences of those editorials are significant. The Wall Street Journal is the most widely read business paper in the world. Its influence is extensive. Yet it gets a free pass on editorial irresponsibility."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jan 17 2007, 01:07 PM) [snapback]376861[/snapback]</div>

The piece i was referring to is just a statement of facts - no opinion. Just economic facts.

I read the same thing about Scientific America (which I subscribe to too) from another periodical - aint that funny.

I wonder if the same is true with the NY Times and WaPo editorialists and reporters? And the NY Times influence is still extensive even with its significant drop in circulation over the past few years.

In any event, what do you think of the US economy as of now?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan, 10:14 AM) [snapback]376870[/snapback]</div>

What's Scientific America?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jan 17 2007, 01:16 PM) [snapback]376874[/snapback]</div>

add an n. Still interested in your response to how you view the current American economy. Also interesting to note how many Canadia[n]s and Mexicans come here every day - I wonder why. Is it our liberties and freedoms? Is it our increased surveillance of our citizens? Is it the constitutional rights we have had taken from us by President Bush?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan, 10:22 AM) [snapback]376884[/snapback]</div>

We've argued this ad nausium already. As I've said before, it's like we as a country have taken out a huge loan, and instead of putting anything into the principal, we just continue to keep borrowing. It's sickening. Thank goodness the Dems have reinstated the pay-as-you-go policy started by Clinton.

Maybe it's because of American corporations who continue to hire them illegally.