On Jun 26, 11:20*pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"


None of which relates to the factual message the he continutes to
parrot--specifically, that for whatever reason, during the Bush II
administration esp, for the average folk, instead of things getting better;
they seem to have gotten worse.

Something about shooting the messenger comes to mind--but sadly, my writing
skills ...

--

The fact that things for the average folk seem to get worse while Bush
II was in office does not prove that Bush II had anything to do with
what happened. Much of the rest of the world changed. Korea educated
its people and their standard of living went up. We have stayed about
the same as far as education and our standard of living has stayed
about the same.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jun 26, 11:20 pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"


None of which relates to the factual message the he continutes to
parrot--specifically, that for whatever reason, during the Bush II
administration esp, for the average folk, instead of things getting
better;
they seem to have gotten worse.

The fact that things for the average folk seem to get worse while Bush
II was in office does not prove that Bush II had anything to do with
what happened.


Obviously you have a problem comprehending cause/ effect relationships.

He started 2 wars and lowered taxes...which starved the government of cash
and also allowed the rich to increasingly hoard the money supply thus taking
it out of circulation...

Much of the rest of the world changed. Korea educated
its people and their standard of living went up. We have stayed about
the same as far as education and our standard of living has stayed
about the same.

Which explains perfectly well the steep rise in poverty levels that occured
under the Bush admin yup yup....

--

On 6/29/2011 1:07 PM, wrote:
On Jun 26, 11:20 pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"


None of which relates to the factual message the he continutes to
parrot--specifically, that for whatever reason, during the Bush II
administration esp, for the average folk, instead of things getting better;
they seem to have gotten worse.

Something about shooting the messenger comes to mind--but sadly, my writing
skills ...

--

The fact that things for the average folk seem to get worse while Bush
II was in office does not prove that Bush II had anything to do with
what happened. Much of the rest of the world changed. Korea educated
its people and their standard of living went up. We have stayed about
the same as far as education and our standard of living has stayed
about the same.

Dan



The only problem with what you're saying is that many people predicted
what would happen when the policies the republicans wanted to put in
place came to pass. The republicans implemented their supply-side,
trickle down economic theories when they got in office. Then we got to
see how they worked in actual practice. The statistics are what they
are. They show Bush's term as president to be an economic disaster. Many
of us said this would happen and it did. In this case I say there was a
causal relationship between the economic mess and republican economic
policies. You can look all you want for explanations but I suggest the
real explanation for the disaster is exactly what it looks like.
Republican economics was a total failure. Pure and simple.

Hawke

On Jul 2, 12:36*am, Hawke wrote:


The only problem with what you're saying is that many people predicted
what would happen when the policies the republicans wanted to put in
place came to pass. The republicans implemented their supply-side,
trickle down economic theories when they got in office. Then we got to
see how they worked in actual practice. The statistics are what they
are. They show Bush's term as president to be an economic disaster. Many
of us said this would happen and it did. In this case I say there was a
causal relationship between the economic mess and republican economic
policies. You can look all you want for explanations but I suggest the
real explanation for the disaster is exactly what it looks like.
Republican economics was a total failure. Pure and simple.

Hawke

There are a couple of problems with your position. First is that you
do not know what would have happened if we had not implemented supply
side economics. We might have been much worse off.

And second is why has there been so little growth in the economy since
Obama has been in office? Compared to other recessions the growth
since the recession is over has been miserable. Is is all Obama's
fault, or is it because of a more fundamental change. The U.S. has
done exceptionally well since about the start of WWII. Is it now
regressing to the norm? This has been an awful long period of slow
economic growth. The actions of the administration do not seem to be
working as expected.

I think you are too confident in what has caused the lack of growth in
in recent times.

Dan

On 7/2/2011 4:55 AM, wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:36 am, wrote:


The only problem with what you're saying is that many people predicted
what would happen when the policies the republicans wanted to put in
place came to pass. The republicans implemented their supply-side,
trickle down economic theories when they got in office. Then we got to
see how they worked in actual practice. The statistics are what they
are. They show Bush's term as president to be an economic disaster. Many
of us said this would happen and it did. In this case I say there was a
causal relationship between the economic mess and republican economic
policies. You can look all you want for explanations but I suggest the
real explanation for the disaster is exactly what it looks like.
Republican economics was a total failure. Pure and simple.

Hawke

There are a couple of problems with your position. First is that you
do not know what would have happened if we had not implemented supply
side economics. We might have been much worse off.

I do know what happened when we implemented supply side economics.
That's a known fact. What would have happened if we didn't do that?
You're right, you can't say for certain. But we do know what the
policies of Clinton did. If we kept them in place what would have
happened? No one would know for sure, but based on how they had been
working for the previous eight years it's a pretty good bet things would
not have been all that much different.

When Bush took over he reversed almost everything that Clinton had put
in place. Why not? Republicans believed just about everything Clinton
did was wrong. So they put in their own plan. They took virtually no
advice from Clinton's team. I got this from Richard Clark's book. No one
in the Bush administration had anything but contempt for the outgoing
administration and couldn't wait to change everything, and they did.



And second is why has there been so little growth in the economy since
Obama has been in office? Compared to other recessions the growth
since the recession is over has been miserable. Is is all Obama's
fault, or is it because of a more fundamental change. The U.S. has
done exceptionally well since about the start of WWII. Is it now
regressing to the norm? This has been an awful long period of slow
economic growth. The actions of the administration do not seem to be
working as expected.

I think you are too confident in what has caused the lack of growth in
in recent times.

Dan


Do you remember when Bush had a couple of good years of economic growth
after he first got in office? There was pretty good growth for a few
years but it was limited to those at the top. The result was we got what
was called a "jobless recovery". We had the eight years of Bush's tax
cuts but jobs were not being created.

Now we still have the tax cuts and we've only had a couple million jobs
created under Obama. The constant is that for ten years job creation has
been pretty damn lousy. My take is that things are different this time.
This isn't like a "normal" recession. First off, it's much more severe.
But then we have different conditions than we ever did before. In the
past when jobs were lost they weren't lost permanently overseas. So when
the economy got going again people got their old jobs back. Now their
jobs are in China so they aren't getting them back. The bottom line is
that it is different this time. We not only had a recession but a
financial debacle and a housing collapse. You add it all up and it's so
overwhelming that our problems are way too big to be solved in a short
amount of time.

This time we really are in uncharted water. We had a near total economic
collapse. We've also seen fundamental changes in global economics.
Things are going to be different from now on. We aren't just going to
bounce back from a recession like before. We have to fundamentally
change our economic system. We're in a transitional time now like the
change from an agricultural based country to an industrial one. Our old
system is in the process of a major change. We have to work our way out
of a horrible economic event and then we have to transition to a new and
different economy and probably a different place in the world
politically too.

It took 13 years and WWII to end the Great Depression. What we just
witnessed was nearly as bad. But we're also facing other big changes
too. So it's going to take years for the country to get back to what we
used to think of as normal. I'd say we'd be lucky if we get back to full
employment and have a strongly growing economy by 2018. That's hard to
take but when you go down as far as we did, and when you have really big
transitions to make, it takes a long time. So it's going to be a long,
slow, process.

Hawke