McCain camp revs up the lies

[HAL 9000 96]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

Agreed. Look for the past 20 years and you will be hard-pressed to find anything that the dems or reps did singlehandedly to either improve or worsen the economy. Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid". Great campaign, and it worked. The first year he was in office, the economy improved. But go back and look at the data and it started recovering in early 1992, several months before he was inaugurated. But in 1991 the economic data was so bad, that he was able to use that to get elected. Same for W. The economy was stalling in 2000 before the election. Continued to decline in 2001, then 9/11 happened and it tanked. But from 2002 to 2005/6, all the national numbers improved. It probably overheated in 2004/5 so the downturn the past year and a half is cyclical. Without any significant legislation from our government, the economy (which will always cycle up and down) has a high probability of improving in 2009 to 2011, insuring that whoever wins this election will be able to say "see, you elected me and I fixed the economy. Give me four more years!".

Interesting... lets remember the economy was 'slowing down' while GWB told everyone it was doing great. That is all relative. He inherited a strong economy that relatively slowed until it tanked due to very visible reasons.

[symbiosis 0]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

Agreed. Look for the past 20 years and you will be hard-pressed to find anything that the dems or reps did singlehandedly to either improve or worsen the economy. Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid". Great campaign, and it worked. The first year he was in office, the economy improved. But go back and look at the data and it started recovering in early 1992, several months before he was inaugurated. But in 1991 the economic data was so bad, that he was able to use that to get elected. Same for W. The economy was stalling in 2000 before the election. Continued to decline in 2001, then 9/11 happened and it tanked. But from 2002 to 2005/6, all the national numbers improved. It probably overheated in 2004/5 so the downturn the past year and a half is cyclical. Without any significant legislation from our government, the economy (which will always cycle up and down) has a high probability of improving in 2009 to 2011, insuring that whoever wins this election will be able to say "see, you elected me and I fixed the economy. Give me four more years!".

Interesting... lets remember the economy was 'slowing down' while GWB told everyone it was doing great. That is all relative. He inherited a strong economy that relatively slowed until it tanked due to very visible reasons.

Yes, he also inherited a budget surplus, which is now at a record $450+ billion. But hey, Clinton got that #######.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

i'm not sure you will either, they've fiddled while rome burned.

[desert_fox 32]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

i'm not sure you will either, they've fiddled while rome burned.

It's more to their lacki of passing any meaning legislation....gotta stay ahead of the problems.

[HAL 9000 96]

Veeeeeeto...

[rin and john 71]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

Agreed. Look for the past 20 years and you will be hard-pressed to find anything that the dems or reps did singlehandedly to either improve or worsen the economy. Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid". Great campaign, and it worked. The first year he was in office, the economy improved. But go back and look at the data and it started recovering in early 1992, several months before he was inaugurated. But in 1991 the economic data was so bad, that he was able to use that to get elected. Same for W. The economy was stalling in 2000 before the election. Continued to decline in 2001, then 9/11 happened and it tanked. But from 2002 to 2005/6, all the national numbers improved. It probably overheated in 2004/5 so the downturn the past year and a half is cyclical. Without any significant legislation from our government, the economy (which will always cycle up and down) has a high probability of improving in 2009 to 2011, insuring that whoever wins this election will be able to say "see, you elected me and I fixed the economy. Give me four more years!".

Interesting... lets remember the economy was 'slowing down' while GWB told everyone it was doing great. That is all relative. He inherited a strong economy that relatively slowed until it tanked due to very visible reasons.

Yes, he also inherited a budget surplus, which is now at a record $450+ billion. But hey, Clinton got that #######.

GWB inherited an economy that was weakening. GDP was shrinking and the economy was slowing prior to his taking office. Kind of like handing someone the helm of a ship about to run aground and then blaming it on them. Then within 8 months of his inauguration, we had 9/11, basically halting the economy. The economy recovered over the next four years to levels seen in the late 90's.

One could argue the dems foreign and border control policy helped "allow" 9/11 to occur. This event contributed significantly to lower tax receipts and higher government spending (military/homeland security).

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

The data shows (first table) that government revenues dropped in 2001, hardly GWB's fault. It was that 1 - 2 year period of decreasing revenue and continued spending growth that took us to an annual deficit. We either need substantial revenue growth (either via increased tax rates or increased economic output) or substantial spending cuts. Spending has never decreased year-over-year (at least since 1968), so we need higher revenue to reduce the deficit. Policies designed to stimulate increase economic output without raising tax rates have been the forte' of the republican party. The budget was balanced during the 90's because Clinton was more fiscally moderate than most Dems and for a significant portion of the 90's the Reps controlled congress.

[HAL 9000 96]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

Agreed. Look for the past 20 years and you will be hard-pressed to find anything that the dems or reps did singlehandedly to either improve or worsen the economy. Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid". Great campaign, and it worked. The first year he was in office, the economy improved. But go back and look at the data and it started recovering in early 1992, several months before he was inaugurated. But in 1991 the economic data was so bad, that he was able to use that to get elected. Same for W. The economy was stalling in 2000 before the election. Continued to decline in 2001, then 9/11 happened and it tanked. But from 2002 to 2005/6, all the national numbers improved. It probably overheated in 2004/5 so the downturn the past year and a half is cyclical. Without any significant legislation from our government, the economy (which will always cycle up and down) has a high probability of improving in 2009 to 2011, insuring that whoever wins this election will be able to say "see, you elected me and I fixed the economy. Give me four more years!".

Interesting... lets remember the economy was 'slowing down' while GWB told everyone it was doing great. That is all relative. He inherited a strong economy that relatively slowed until it tanked due to very visible reasons.

Yes, he also inherited a budget surplus, which is now at a record $450+ billion. But hey, Clinton got that #######.

GWB inherited an economy that was weakening. GDP was shrinking and the economy was slowing prior to his taking office. Kind of like handing someone the helm of a ship about to run aground and then blaming it on them. Then within 8 months of his inauguration, we had 9/11, basically halting the economy. The economy recovered over the next four years to levels seen in the late 90's.

One could argue the dems foreign and border control policy helped "allow" 9/11 to occur. This event contributed significantly to lower tax receipts and higher government spending (military/homeland security).

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

The data shows (first table) that government revenues dropped in 2001, hardly GWB's fault. It was that 1 - 2 year period of decreasing revenue and continued spending growth that took us to an annual deficit. We either need substantial revenue growth (either via increased tax rates or increased economic output) or substantial spending cuts. Spending has never decreased year-over-year (at least since 1968), so we need higher revenue to reduce the deficit. Policies designed to stimulate increase economic output without raising tax rates have been the forte' of the republican party. The budget was balanced during the 90's because Clinton was more fiscally moderate than most Dems and for a significant portion of the 90's the Reps controlled congress.

Again, blaming a relative surplus for a tank effect is a bit indicative that you are not considering the overall picture: it was GWB's motto to lower taxes across the board, thereby lowering incoming funds to cover the increasing cost of plundering resources around the planet. Easily seen post 9/11. In addition to economical factors tied in to market panic.

It was simply a period of decreasing revenue COMPARED to the surplus peak, not decreasing revenue compared to a baseline amount indicative of a norm.

[yogib37 3]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six years the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $3.75 a gallon & climbing;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

charles approves this message

Charles has his GOP ROSE Color glasses on.

If Al Gore was Pres when Bush stole the election, and all this happen in his terms, The GOP's would be all up in arms and yelling.. we need change. The gop would be un glued.

McCain says he will change and do the reform.. Talk is cheap. He will still continue to push Bush's plans. He just saying things cause he got his lips pucker up and attached to some America A$$ so he can get elected.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

charles approves this message

Charles has his GOP ROSE Color glasses on.

gop rose colored glasses are cheaper than the dem rose colored glasses. and i'm cheap.

If Al Gore was Pres when Bush stole the election, and all this happen in his terms, The GOP's would be all up in arms and yelling.. we need change. The gop would be un glued.

so you say. who can tell?

McCain says he will change and do the reform.. Talk is cheap. He will still continue to push Bush's plans. He just saying things cause he got his lips pucker up and attached to some America A$$ so he can get elected.

kinda like obama is?

[rin and john 71]

Again, blaming a relative surplus for a tank effect is a bit indicative that you are not considering the overall picture: it was GWB's motto to lower taxes across the board, thereby lowering incoming funds to cover the increasing cost of plundering resources around the planet. Easily seen post 9/11. In addition to economical factors tied in to market panic.

It was simply a period of decreasing revenue COMPARED to the surplus peak, not decreasing revenue compared to a baseline amount indicative of a norm.

And now both candidates want to lower taxes (revenues). But one has greater plans on increasing spending (albeit domestic versus "resource plundering"). The deficit has actually been declining since 2004.

Your last comment is wrong - revenue decreased YOY for the first time (at least since 1968) in 2001. So the "baseline" curve would be to expect a YOY increase. I am sure that was the projection as of 1/1/2001. That did not happen and the government had to deal with that over the next several years.

From http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

"Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 bil­lion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil­lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues"

Now spending, we can blame that on GWB and the Republicans as they controlled the WH and Congress and continued to spend like drunken monkeys. I am just not convinced the other side of the aisle wouldn't have spent freely given the chance (just on different items).

[HAL 9000 96]

charles approves this message

Charles has his GOP ROSE Color glasses on.

gop rose colored glasses are cheaper than the dem rose colored glasses. and i'm cheap.

If Al Gore was Pres when Bush stole the election, and all this happen in his terms, The GOP's would be all up in arms and yelling.. we need change. The gop would be un glued.

so you say. who can tell?

McCain says he will change and do the reform.. Talk is cheap. He will still continue to push Bush's plans. He just saying things cause he got his lips pucker up and attached to some America A$ so he can get elected.

kinda like obama is?

When Obama starts voting in line with the Bush-Cheney program, then we can agree on that one.

[IAMX 3,055]

I agree, it is the Democrats fault, for funding this war. They should have took funding and put it somewhere in the local economy. Instead, Republicans want to criticize Democrats for not spending recklessly for a war that shouldn't have happened anyways, and Democrats politely bend over.

So is this the Democrat's fault? Yes. However, it is also Republican fault as well, because Democrats don't control the entire government.

I keep telling people none of this #### will change both with McCain AND Obama, but people are simply stupid and just like blaming the other side while thinking their side is doing fan-######-tastic.

Way to keep America screwed up, boys.

Keep cheerleading for politicians who will make it worse.

Edited September 10, 2008 by SRVT

[HAL 9000 96]

If there was no increase from baseline under Clinton, then there was no Surplus under Clinton. Then pray tell, what did GWB blunder away? And more so, why is the Government lying to us?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

Agreed. Look for the past 20 years and you will be hard-pressed to find anything that the dems or reps did singlehandedly to either improve or worsen the economy. Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid". Great campaign, and it worked. The first year he was in office, the economy improved. But go back and look at the data and it started recovering in early 1992, several months before he was inaugurated. But in 1991 the economic data was so bad, that he was able to use that to get elected. Same for W. The economy was stalling in 2000 before the election. Continued to decline in 2001, then 9/11 happened and it tanked. But from 2002 to 2005/6, all the national numbers improved. It probably overheated in 2004/5 so the downturn the past year and a half is cyclical. Without any significant legislation from our government, the economy (which will always cycle up and down) has a high probability of improving in 2009 to 2011, insuring that whoever wins this election will be able to say "see, you elected me and I fixed the economy. Give me four more years!".

Income for most Americans declined while the economy expanded. A first in recorded US history. And probably not the least important factor on the economic situation we find ourselves in today. Trickle down didn't work. Not last time and not this time. The GOP will probably never learn that lesson but trickle down economics is what George H. W. Bush labeled it: voodoo economics.

[yogib37 3]

charles approves this message

Charles has his GOP ROSE Color glasses on.

gop rose colored glasses are cheaper than the dem rose colored glasses. and i'm cheap.

If Al Gore was Pres when Bush stole the election, and all this happen in his terms, The GOP's would be all up in arms and yelling.. we need change. The gop would be un glued.

so you say. who can tell?

:lol:

Tuche,

your a good sport..