Setting him up for his defense of any bad economic news during a future Democratic Presidency: It's still all Bush's fault!

Where did I hear this whine recently about economic problems? Oh wait, it was a different whine: It's still all Clinton's fault!

No comment on Bolton's recess appointment? I am so loaded to rave about how happy I am with that clusterfuck of a decision.

Shhhh, the moustache will hear you.

It leaves his face while he sleeps at night and flies across the land, smothering political dissidents in their beds.

As Ace has noted previously, the moustache is fierce and unreasonable.

I'd advise you to sleep with clippers under your pillow.

For all these geniuses convinced that foreign banks are going to dump our debt, a question:

Where the F are they gonna put those assets? Euros?

I suppose if China et al wanted to commit financial suicide by dumping our debt, they could cause us some pain. But be realistic. They gonna go out there and put it in yen?

VonKreeden-if the Bush economy starts to tank before his term ends as did the Clinton bubble economy and cooked numbers did, then I will be the first to concede the buck stops with the administration. Remember the coporate scandals took place during the Clinton term and have been prosecuted during the Bush term. There was no 9/11 economic sledgehammer during Clinton's term. Clinton took a documented recovery in progress economy from Bush I while W took over a documented economy in decline. Your argument is the same as liberals attempts to compare some of the Conservative's hatred of Clinton to the Liberal's hatred of Bush. Both describe the same emotion but are based on entirely different facts.

I much prefer the cheesecake that you had the last time to the guy with the cowbell? Didn't we all vote for cheesecake?

Face it vonK, you guys on the left are out of ammo. You have nothing. Just hatred. Thats not enough. You need to have *IDEAS*, you know, those things you use to solve problems! Instead of a rant about why Bush shouldn't name Bolton, how about telling us who you lefties would name? And why.

VK- are you always this much of a dick? Give W the credit for pushing through the spending restraint and the tax cuts that produced economic growth and a shrinking deficit. Like it or not, he's the one that wanted it the most, and he got it done.

Although he could have been a little more pushy regarding the pork Congress still throws into every bill. But that's a minor point. The big news is the US is kicking ass, economically.

Hope I'm wrong but I simply do not see how we can limp along forever with $50 to $60 bbl oil, or more. Sooner or later this will come to a bust. The last time I said that was in the late nineties, and though it took some time, it came to pass. Again, hope I'm wrong.

What kind of news prompts you to put up Justine Bateman (i.e., Mallory)? I forget.

Can't the ladies get some nice cheesecake too?

If these liberal commentators would actually take a course in something they profess to be experts in perhaps then they would understand. But that would be hard.
Instead they take writing courses and classes in the 'social sciences' where everyone is alwasy right if you back it with your feelings.
And the professors love it because it makes their life simple/easy too.

Tax Cuts always generate growth - the real question is always how soon and how much. In this case, not soon enough to really help Bush in the '04 election, but probably even more growth in the long run than even the Admin expected.

Now PLEASE get rid of the AMT and cut corporate taxes.

VK - I wouldn't say everything is Clinton's fault, he didn't create pestilence or Liberalism (same thing) he just made them worse. But if you look at most of our really big problems today, Ann Coulter really is right: It's all Liberals' fault.

It is frustrating isnt it.

Cut taxes, revenues grow.

How hard is that to understand? How many times does it have to happen right in front of their faces before they get it?

I don't think anyone would argue that tax cuts are NOT going to have a positive effect on the economy in the short run. But let us look at a couple of points from the Reagan tax cut era. Big tax cuts and massive government expenditures. In effect the deficit was funding an increase in the expenditures of National Defense. Not unlike a TVA for the white collars. The national debt was softened somewhat by the artificial boom of the Clinton years, which no economist I know of has predicted a second coming. Now you have massive tax cuts and massive expenditures that are basically leaving the U.S. economy so no government jobs program boom there and no artifical economic boom to ease the debt deficit. Coupled with oil at $61 a barrel. The economy certainly isn't in the dumps but I personally do not expect more than slight growth at best for the next 5 years.

Just so I have it right, all of you think that it is OK that the communist Chinese hold most of our debt? This economy is being held up by the enormous loans that China has given the USA. As to where are they going to spend it, they dont have to, they just have to call in the loan, and the dollar drops. How many of you think that being in debt is a good thing, even when the country that holds the debt, considers use thier biggest rival economicly and militarily. Our debt is paying for China's military modernization and expansion, and thats good how?

If anyone got lucky, it was Clinton; the beginning of the dot.com bubble (along with some shady accounting practices and outright fraud that made the "Decade of Greed" look downright ethical) allowed Clinton keep his tax increases from dragging down the economy.

Thomas does make a good point about whether it's Keysian theory or supply side theory that's growing the economy. (Although the term MASSIVE is over-the top rhetoric when compared to spending increases and tax cuts of the past)

Yeah, I do in fact like it that the Chinese economy is dependent upon our own. Keeps them from gettin stupid.

More than a century ago, an economist (whose name escapes me) put it thus: When goods and money travel freely across borders, armies don't.

Thomas,

Ummm, have you noticed the deficit is already shrinking due to increased federal revenue? And on what do you base your expectation of minimal growth over the next five years? Just askin'.

And ditto what Dave in Texas just said.

Last was me. F'n Monday.

Dave in Texas,
1938 Germany was France's largest trade partner, and if I remember, the USSR was the largest supplier of raw minerals to Hitler.

Slow, steady growth is good growth.

Jeff,

Interesting point, but I think Hitler kinda had a plan for taking over the infrastructure and raw materials possessed by those nations. Also, he wasn't, as we later found out, the most rational of chaps. So I don't know that the anology holds for the Chinese.

"they just have to call in the loan'

What if we don't pay? They going to send Guido Breakaleg to visit?

Seriously, as somebody else said, so what if they cash in all their t-bills? We'll sell them to the Japanese. You think if the Chinese hadn't of bought those t-bills nobody else would have?

Feel free to ignore me the rest of the day. I can't even enter my name correctly. Oooh, look at the pretty lights.

Dogstar - Yeah, I got snarky with Ace characterizing any Dem administration claiming that bad economic news was the Bush admin's responsibility when so many Repubs did this exact thing during Bush's first term.

Regarding Bush's economic policies you say:
Give W the credit for pushing through the spending restraint and the tax cuts that produced economic growth and a shrinking deficit.

Well, spending restraint is hard to find under this administration. According to the Heritage Foundation:
Federal spending is growing at its fastest rate since the 1960s ... Discretionary spending leaped 39 percent between 2001 and 2004. Even after excluding defense and costs related to September 11, discretionary spending is rising 7 percent annually.

So I'm not sure what props I'm supposed to be giving for this administration holding the line on spending. No, instead we have a Federal debt that is growing, and increasing held by foreign governments. We now have growing employment numbers, but only now are the wages of the newly re-employed reaching their pre-recession levels.

Oh, and the recession, as apparently measured by recession measurers, ended in November of 2001, but Bush's masterly economic policy has only now started to have a overall positive impact on the American worker. I can't give much props for such economic performance.

Funny, I think it was a French economist. I'll have to go look it up now.

I can't give you an informed opinion about the dependency of 1938 German economy upon French trade, and as has already been pointed out, Hitler decided he could take the natural resources of eastern Europe and Soviet Russia - so I don't see how that analogy holds up,

but I can tell you that from the end of WWI until National Socialism took complete control of Germany, European trade with Germany couldn't offset the punishing effects of the "debt" repayments required by Versailles.

If I knew more about the true aims of the Chinese leadership I would feel a hell of a lot better. They want to fill the anti- American vacum, deals with Burma, Sudan, and the North Koreans, makes me wonder if we are selling out the futrue for cheap goods now. Hitler laid out his plan in Mien Kaumpf, if anyone outside of Germany had read it, maybe they would have thought differntly about trading with him. So when i read and hear about the Chinese wanting to take back Taiwan or the annexation of the Spratly islands, I remember that the Chinese believe that they are the middle kingdom, the center of the world. I dont trust them, I dont trust thier motives, I do trust thier intentions.

VK,

You are actually going to criticize Bush for not maintaining the recovery when the recession "ended" two months after 9-11?
Economic policy ain't magic. Conventional wisdom (I'm not an economist, obviously, but it makes sense that there would be a significant lag time from implementation to effect) is a 4-5 year period before an administrations economic policies start to take full effect. How long has W been in office?

VK, the recession that you say ended in Nov 2001 began when?

jeff,

I think being skeptical of China regarding their political goals is prudent and I agree with you on that. For example, I am very leery of allowing the Unocal deal to go through. I just don't agree that their purchase of t-bills falls into the category of potential economic calamity. They wield no additional power from their investments in t-bills that I can see.

Brew Fan,
if memory serves, didn't the South Korean central bank, with a lot less in T-bills, try to call in the loan, that sent the dollar tumbling for two days until they said it was a mistake? The other thing is that they are using the T-bills as collateral to buy weapons and technology from the Russians and Europeans. Think back to post Civil War America( I know were in the way back machine here) Great Britain loaned us a lot of money that led directly to our explosive growth in industry, to the point that 50 years later they were behind us in industrial output. The Chinese do not need our help and if that means pain now instead of agony later on, lets take the pain now.

DMan - The economists who measure recessions say it began in March 2001, so obviously not started by Bush economic policies, but a response to the Tech Bubble's bust that started in April of 2000.

The thing that is interesting about this recession, well interesting to me, is how long it took between the upturn in GDP and upturns in employment and real wages. The recession ended in November 2001, but only in the last year has the actual economic pain stopped for the American worker, and it will be interesting to see if the upturn in employment and wages can survive through the next year.

RE: "Ummm, have you noticed the deficit is already shrinking due to increased federal revenue? And on what do you base your expectation of minimal growth over the next five years? Just askin'."

Let's please be careful not to politicize this. When the Bush Administration states the deficit is shrinking what are they actually saying? "The amount of our budget shortfall is not as much as we predicted." ANY budget deficit is going to contribute to the National Debt of course. Saying "things aren't nearly as bad as we predicted" is like the army lowering their recruitment goals to state to the press that they met their recruitment goals. Just simple tricks for the mindless media to spew to the gulible masses. Present company excluded of course.

My basis for minimal growth is simply my opinion, I am a purchasing agent for an engineering and construction company and the outlook has improved in comparison to 2001 but our clients are holding off on investment in capital again it seems. As interest rates rise, the economy slows. Other factors are involved of course, simply my opinion.

Lauraw,
RE: Slow, steady growth is good growth.

Normally I would agree completely. Unfortunately the GOP plan is for robust growth to make up for lost tax revenue from the cuts.

>More than a century ago, an economist (whose name escapes me)
>put it thus: When goods and money travel freely across borders,
>armies don't.

Well, to further stump for a position as "official comment box pedant", it was Frederic Bastiat - the reason we have the phrase "laissez-faire economics", since he coined the term.

No problem toots.

"no problem toots"

Not for an ideologue perhaps.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

You said 'lost tax revenue from the cuts.'

I show you in a very direct way how those revenues have in fact increased.

And you respond with a national debt spiel.

But I am the ideologue?

Thomas,

You're right, I played a little loose with the deficit reduction. Guess we'll have to wait and see if it falls as projected (yes, I know it would be a reduction only relative to last year's overspending, and not since he took office, but give him a bit of a break for inheriting a crappy economy that was immediately hammered by 9-11). Of course, as has been noted, it would be helpful if Bush and his Congress wasn't so loose with the purse strings.

"The other thing is that they are using the T-bills as collateral to buy weapons and technology from the Russians and Europeans."

jeff, I don't know about the SK incident you cite but I do know you don't use cold hard cash to buy t-bills just so you can have collateral; and you don't need collateral to purchase something, you only need collateral if you're going to borrow money. So rest easy my friend, and keep shopping at WalMart :)

lauraw
And you show information from a year ago. A one paragraph statement showing a supposition from one data point where my original point was debt.

Lots of Chinese buy at Wal*Mart too.

Spent several years in Taiwan, which incidentally is China's second largest investor and trading partner. Taiwanese opinion about reunification is split pretty evenly 3 ways, 1) give in to China 2) declare sovereignty 3) leave everything the hell alone we like it just the way it is.

China is patient... taking Taiwan by force destroys the very thing they want, a powerful economic engine. They'll wait, and as long as Taiwan doesn't piss em off by declaring independence, they'll reunify peacefully.

The one constant - everyone in Taiwan considers himself Chinese (except for the Taiwanese natives/Aborigines, and they are few in number).

That article is from 2005.

-and I wasn't responding to your original point. I was responding to this exchange:

Lauraw,
RE: Slow, steady growth is good growth.

Normally I would agree completely. Unfortunately the GOP plan is for robust growth to make up for lost tax revenue from the cuts.

And as I pointed out, tax revenues are just fine n' dandy after the cuts.

...not that I give a rat's ass about lost tax revenues, actually. 'Starve the beast' kind of ideologue that I am.
But it would be kind of you to actually read the article I sent instead of just the headline, which you then misinterpreted as being from 2004.

Our debt is paying for China's military modernization and expansion, and thats good how?
Our debt would be less if it weren't for the MFN status conferred upon them by Bill Clinton. His policy of "engagement" or appeasement and treason, has turned out to be a bonanza for Chinese manufacturers and a disaster for US manufacturers, and it hasn't made them any "more like us" than they were before. Now they're an even more powerful Communist Dictatorship and have begun to threaten us with nuclear weapons! Perhaps we would've lost the jobs and the businesses anyway, but why speed up the process as Clinton did? Why not hold onto those jobs as long as possible? Again I must quote Ann Coulter:

Its all Liberals' fault.

"Lots of Chinese buy at Wal*Mart too."

My point exactly Dave. WalMart is doubling the number of stores in China and guess what? Some of the corporate income taxes WalMart pays can be used to buy back those t-bills everybody seems so worried about :) I heart capitalism!

Lauraw,
Let me rephrase to assure you of my comprehension of the article. And you show a one paragraph statement showing a supposition from one data point based upon a year ago. Most people would not be so bold as to assume a trend based upon two data points. Would you base a yearly trend in the stockmarket on information from one day to the next? Regardless, all that is meaningless. Spending has increased massive amounts. Unless you are intentionally TRYING to bankrupt the government you DON'T INCREASE SPENDING AND DECREASE YOUR REVENUE AT THE SAME TIME!!! It has been estimated that the loss of the estate tax revenue will cost the government 3 trillion over ten years. I don't think many rational people would say a massive hemorage is a way to take care of a bloated federal government. If you have your way stocks will collapse, the dollar will collapse, inflation will soar. Is that really the solution you want? What happened to all the conservatives? Where did they go?

"DON'T INCREASE SPENDING AND DECREASE YOUR REVENUE AT THE SAME TIME!!! "

Thomas, this is where your logic is flawed and your premise collapses. The purpose of a tax cut is to INCREASE tax revenues. And guess what? It works every time!

Guess what, no it doesn't. When you figure in economic growth and inflation your statement is simply false. Nice talking point though.

"When you figure in economic growth and inflation your statement is simply false."

ummm, the tax cuts are what fuels the economic growth. And, Reagans tax cuts caused tax revenues to grow even accounting for inflation (which was substantially higher then it is now)! Just like W's! Amazing, isn't it?

BTW thomas, if one of your points is the federal government spends too much money you won't be getting any argument out of me about that.