Misrepresentation of the truth by journalist. More fodder for the Scooter defense team...eh WillemVonMoonbat

blockquote>GDP growth averaged a mere 1.1% between the beginning of 2001 and the second quarter of 2003.

what is that comment supposed to indicate? that, coming out of a recession, one would expect the national growth rate of an economy to be lower that the rate evidenced during the latter stages of the business cycle? wow - stop the press. profound information here.

meanwhile - $8.5 trillion and counting. Here's an idea, let's get rid of taxes altogether - that'll really get the economy humming. So long as we continue to borrow growth from future generations, we can LIVE LARGE AND FAT right now. Screw the grandkids!

One cannot expect NYT to be objective. They don't want the Bush administration to be doing good - in anything.

As for orange boy, parroting the party line still. Ofcourse you would never admit that your boy slick Willie was responsible for the recession, would you.

The growth in our economy - just the growth - is larger than China's ENTIRE economy.

I didnt read the article and im not an expert on the economy either, but i do know that you need to read editorials with a grain of salt. And i should hope even the readers of the new york times knows this as well.

As for orange boy, parroting the party line still. Ofcourse you would never admit that your boy slick Willie was responsible for the recession, would you.

Posted by: kjstrouble

who's party line is it exactly? it's called the most basic economic observation available in every micro-principles textbook. of course, you don't even debate it. and, ahhh yes, the inevitable "it's all bill clinton's fault" - god that is sooo tired.

basic economic observation available in every micro-principles textbook,"

Citing the debt in this discussion is as relevant as bringing up cold sores in a discussion about railway schedules; if you can’t keep up with the conversation, take notes.

Matt,

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics"

I promised next time a neorad claimed that the debt was "mortgaging our children’s' future" I'd refer them to Willem van Oranje who insists that Bonds aren't taxes.
Neorads; talk among yourselves.

The NYT is not the only MSM to point out that there is no real proof that Bush's tax cuts helped the economy.

It helped individual citizens like me who make a very high salary. But I did not see it help any of my low level employees.

if you can’t keep up with the conversation, take notes.

ROTFLMAO!!!

It helped individual citizens like me who make a very high salary. But I did not see it help any of my low level employees.

Yeah, well, I might contend that tax cuts helped abate a recession that was hitting us hard, right after we got hit hard on 9/11.

And tax cuts do help the rich. It's true. It helps the rich invest more in business, and that helps create jobs.

You're right, ClearlynotConsevative; the NY Slimes wasn't the only DBM to assert this--all the other biased media spews the same b/s...

Yea Matt,

All is good, all is great, let us thank him for our food....Just wait dude, first quarter 07, then we'll talk. It's all toast. Here's a thought, keep defending the indefensible. Yea, that's the ticket...Idiots all!

For those who constantly parrot the phrase "Our economy is strong." or "The economy is humming"

From what I understand, that is an illusion. The so-called 'strong economy' has been supported by an overheated housebuilding market and by homeowners taking out second mortgages on the increased value of their homes to spend spend spend. That market is on the verge of crashing and taking down the economy, so brace yourself for a recession.

Gonna blame that on the Democrats as well?

That's actually not true - there's no recession in the horizon. In fact, the economy appears to be re accelerating again - thanks to the American consumer. As cited by today's marketwatch article on the 16% increase in the 2nd Quarter GDP number, they state "despite high gas prices - the consumer has remained strong" Inflation is in check and unemployment is low relative to Europe and other major countries in N. America. Business investment is rising and net exports are rising. Finally, gas prices have plunged in many areas - as much as 30 cents a gallon in my area. This is stimulative. They have to go down even further.

The housing market will do just fine. Sales for 2006 will be the third highest ever - behind 2005 (the best market ever) and 2004 (the second best market ever). We are still talking about over 6 million homes sold, which beats every year that Clintune was in office.

Some interesting econ. stat. The unemployment rate is lowest in Louisiana (at 2.9% per BLS) even though New Orleans is a disaster per the un-MSM.

Some interesting econ. stat. The unemployment rate is lowest in Louisiana (at 2.9% per BLS) even though New Orleans is a disaster per the un-MSM.

From what I understand, that is an illusion.

From what we understand, most of your posts are illusions.

Canada--where men are boys, and the call to prayer is the most popular tune...

Keefer, too funny!

Fools and idoliters! Tina, perhaps you should actually READ the report you speak of. It's not nearly as rosey as you portray. Like I said, between Thanksgiving and 1Q07 it WILL hit the fan. Please, keep on laughing at the "fools." That's what they said about Jesus..."a fool" then they killed him.

Peace (a dirty word in the Republican vocabulary)

Thanks, Tina--don't you think 3morons is funny too? He's an angry lib kook who writes a bunch of gibberish about killing people. Maybe we should get the FBI to track down his IP address, apprehend him, and send him off to Git'mo.

Just kidding, 3moronyears; we know yu're a kook who's been angry for a few years. Maybe Piglosi will become Speaker in '07, and you can smile again. Maybe by then, you'll be old enough to vote--or tie your own shoes without mommy's help...

I like the comment about the tax cuts 'helped me as a highly paid Dem with an agenda', but 'I didn't see it help my lower paid employees'. ha ha ha ha Eloquently spoken by a dumb ass who has never filled out a tax form. For one, there was a large increase in the individual exemptions (probably all eunuchs with no kids) ...are your employees tooooo fricken dumb to have notice? The marriage penalty was phased out....anyone making over $50m filing jointed got almost $2,000 in relief...maybe none of your employees are married, but just a bunch of gay partnerships huh? The lowest bracket was expanded to $7,000...the first bracket of tax was initiated at 10%....so any of your employees if you are paying them at least a Walmart size wage should have favored over $500 on that one. So, my friend, do your own taxes next year, even if you are a highly paid liberal putz. It has gotten to the point that almost half of the population pays no Federal taxes. I believe your employees all fall into this category, thus maybe your feelings are true, since if they pay no taxes they get NO benefit. Stop blowing it out your piehole.

From what I understand, that is an illusion. The so-called 'strong economy' has been supported by an overheated housebuilding market and by homeowners taking out second mortgages on the increased value of their homes to spend spend spend. That market is on the verge of crashing and taking down the economy, so brace yourself for a recession. (emphasis - mine)

Canuck, this is a real estate fund I'm in. Do you see any indication that the real estate market is tanking? No? Me neither.

Keefer,
You, my man, are in rare form tonight! Heh!
Mary

Spook:
--The end is near. Repent!!

basic economic observation available in every micro-principles textbook,"

There’s your problem, GDP is a study in macroeconomics; GDP slipped into negative numbers in the 3rd quarter of 2000 officially beginning the recession. Bush submitted his first budget in October 2001; 12 months later.

Citing the debt in this discussion is as relevant as bringing up cold sores in a discussion about railway schedules; if you can’t keep up with the conversation, take notes.

you are absolutely right bane - i meant macro and wrote micro. but with regard to citing debt, you tell me how that is not relevant to a debate that involves the very discussion of employment of tax policies to influence growth. are you somehow indicating that debt (a consequence of tax policy - a stock variable if you will) is somehow irrelevant? you sound like ann coulter on fox news the other day....

basic economic observation available in every micro-principles textbook,"

There’s your problem, GDP is a study in macroeconomics; GDP slipped into negative numbers in the 3rd quarter of 2000 officially beginning the recession. Bush submitted his first budget in October 2001; 12 months later.

Citing the debt in this discussion is as relevant as bringing up cold sores in a discussion about railway schedules; if you can’t keep up with the conversation, take notes.

you are absolutely right bane - i meant macro and wrote micro. but with regard to citing debt, you tell me how that is not relevant to a debate that involves the very discussion of employment of tax policies to influence growth. are you somehow indicating that debt (a consequence of tax policy - a stock variable if you will) is somehow irrelevant? you sound like ann coulter on fox news the other day....

A discussion of the debt in this thread is misplaced; many things are the “consequence of tax policy” the growth in the debt is not one of them. The change in tax policy increased revenue to the government in the form of taxes, while the debt grew. Your breathless assertion that our grandchildren will pay for our indulgences is sophomoric at best, dangerously insipid at worst. But, let’s give you the three-cent tour of the debt because you are unable or unwilling to stick to the subject at hand.

The total public debt is the product of war, economic recession, and inflation. It is not the accumulation of deficits from previous budgets; that would preclude the largest portion of the national debt; the amount necessary to service the debt. As such, it is not the progeny of tax policy, nor is it related to output from national productivity. The debt raises and lowers as the servicing of that debt is recalculated (daily); this is done when the deficits or borrowing are reduced and the payment on the Treasury bonds or intergovernmental holdings changes, and as market rates and repayment schedules fluctuate with Intra-globular events and exchanges. Additionally, when there are more redemptions of Treasury securities than there are issues. Intergovernmental holdings are securities held by Government trust funds, and Federal Financing Bank securities, and a small amount of marketable securities are held by government accounts for use in exchange programs. Publicly held debt includes foreign entities with claim (securities) to the debt, these instruments cannot be called at random, so the ownership of the debt is an investment in the health of the economy. Why do you suppose China is so heavily invested in our securities? I should point out that China’s investment, although significant for China is miniscule compared to our overall economy. Japan is still the largest foreign investor in our economy and their ownership of the debt is tiny compared with our own public ownership; a debt we owe to ourselves.

So, by your logic, my child’s taxes are paying for that quagmire of an indulgence my father’s generation involved themselves in without being invited by the legitimate government of Germany! Damn that Roosevelt; by getting us involved in a war in Germany he took the focus off the Global War on Fascism! To insinuate that I have the wherewithal of Ann Coulter is high praise, indeed.