Comments on: Job growth http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/ a site for people in their right mind Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:48:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Lefty http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-8009 Lefty Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:07:37 +0000 /?p=325#comment-8009 Paul,
Don’t blame me, you posed regarding what economists have been critical of Bush. Here’s a quote from one american nobel prize winning economist for you. I have literally dozens of others if you really want to get into it.

“Rather than stimulating job growth, the Bush-backed millionaire tax cuts will help stimulate a massive federal budget shortfall—a 10-year deficit of nearly $6 trillion, according to George Akerlof, a 2001 Nobel Prize winner and economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “The popular discussion is there might be some question whether Bush’s economic policies are advisable,” he said. “But that’s wrong—they’re the worst in over 200 years.”

]]> By: Lefty http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-8008 Lefty Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:02:29 +0000 /?p=325#comment-8008 Paul, By the way, you are aware (I hope) that Gore never said that he invented the internet. That was just a typical example of how Republican politicos distort reality. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." This was a true statement. According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator." The steady stream of mis (and dis) information that flows from the republican direction is maddening. Paul,
By the way, you are aware (I hope) that Gore never said that he invented the internet. That was just a typical example of how Republican politicos distort reality. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” This was a true statement. According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who’s been called the Father of the Internet, “The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator.” The steady stream of mis (and dis) information that flows from the republican direction is maddening.

]]> By: Lefty http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-8007 Lefty Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:56:39 +0000 /?p=325#comment-8007 Paul, Every single living American Nobel Prize winning economist except 1 has been critical of Bush's economic policies. I'd say that Nobel Prize winning economists are pretty heavy hitting too. Paul,
Every single living American Nobel Prize winning economist except 1 has been critical of Bush’s economic policies. I’d say that Nobel Prize winning economists are pretty heavy hitting too.

]]> By: Paul http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-7994 Paul Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:39:13 +0000 /?p=325#comment-7994 Hopefully you did not miss my sarcasm, especially considering Gore himself stated he invented the Internet. The Internet Society Website http://www.isoc.org, track the development of the internet back to 1961 and state by 1985 "by 1985, Internet was already well established as a technology supporting a broad community of researchers and developers, and was beginning to be used by other communities for daily computer communications." I didn't think Gore was elected to the Senate until 1985? Bush's economic policies are based on Keynesian economic theories and supported by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve. Who are some of the economists who think he has handled the economy poorly. It is certainly their opinion to think that way, but Keynes is a pretty big hitter. Hopefully you did not miss my sarcasm, especially considering Gore himself stated he invented the Internet. The Internet Society Website http://www.isoc.org, track the development of the internet back to 1961 and state by 1985 “by 1985, Internet was already well established as a technology supporting a broad community of researchers and developers, and was beginning to be used by other communities for daily computer communications.” I didn’t think Gore was elected to the Senate until 1985?

Bush’s economic policies are based on Keynesian economic theories and supported by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve. Who are some of the economists who think he has handled the economy poorly. It is certainly their opinion to think that way, but Keynes is a pretty big hitter.

]]> By: Lefty http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-7971 Lefty Wed, 08 Jun 2005 02:55:55 +0000 /?p=325#comment-7971 Many economists think that Bush has handled the economy very poorly. His extremism certainly doesn't promote investor confidence. Many economists think that Bush has handled the economy very poorly. His extremism certainly doesn’t promote investor confidence.

]]> By: Lefty http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-7970 Lefty Wed, 08 Jun 2005 02:53:41 +0000 /?p=325#comment-7970 Paul, Al Gore didn't invent the internet. He just wrote and proposed the legislation that funded the prototype that has now evolved into the world wide web (the internet). You are correct in crediting his vision and determination in pushing through the legislation that got the internet started, but many others did play important roles once the government funding got the internet off the ground. Paul,
Al Gore didn’t invent the internet. He just wrote and proposed the legislation that funded the prototype that has now evolved into the world wide web (the internet). You are correct in crediting his vision and determination in pushing through the legislation that got the internet started, but many others did play important roles once the government funding got the internet off the ground.

]]> By: Paul http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-7898 Paul Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:57:12 +0000 /?p=325#comment-7898 You commented that the Bush Administration failed economic classes? Did you ever take an economics class? Basic Macro economic theories not only point out the cyclical nature of business, but also clearly show that a government should run a surplus during a boom time and a deficit during a slow time to control the supply of money and avoid the exageration of the cycle and possibly induce hyper inflation or risk a depresion. It is Keynesian economics to a tee. Let's take a look at the Clinton boom years. He benefited from the growth of the internet industry and a skyrocketing stock market. Oh wait, I forgot, since Al Gore invented the internet, the Clinton administration can take some credit for that. Clinton's last year of office, the bubble burst and investors realized these companies were not turning a profit. The major sell off began, and 9/11 nearly destroyed the economy. Bush did not inherit a perfect economy, nor did he screw it up. I disagree with some of Bush's policies, but he has handled the economy well. You commented that the Bush Administration failed economic classes? Did you ever take an economics class? Basic Macro economic theories not only point out the cyclical nature of business, but also clearly show that a government should run a surplus during a boom time and a deficit during a slow time to control the supply of money and avoid the exageration of the cycle and possibly induce hyper inflation or risk a depresion. It is Keynesian economics to a tee.

Let’s take a look at the Clinton boom years. He benefited from the growth of the internet industry and a skyrocketing stock market. Oh wait, I forgot, since Al Gore invented the internet, the Clinton administration can take some credit for that. Clinton’s last year of office, the bubble burst and investors realized these companies were not turning a profit. The major sell off began, and 9/11 nearly destroyed the economy.

Bush did not inherit a perfect economy, nor did he screw it up. I disagree with some of Bush’s policies, but he has handled the economy well.

]]> By: Suzanne http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-7830 Suzanne Fri, 03 Jun 2005 06:31:45 +0000 /?p=325#comment-7830 Mr. Jack, I do agree with you, additional facts and reasons First of all, there is no such thing as free trade. Trade, by its very definition, requires the exchange of commerce. Therefore, in any trade exchange, there are purchasers and sellers. Someone pays the bill in each and every trade deal. The only thing free in these modern "free trade" agreements is the free ride that the internationalists receive from our federal government, which is being paid by American workers with lower wages and the loss of American jobs. NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and now President Bush's proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) are not only blatantly unconstitutional, they are downright harmful to the security and interests of the United States. Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution plainly gives Congress the responsibility to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." That Congress has willingly ceded this responsibility and that the President has wrongfully assumed this responsibility means that both Congress and the President have violated their oaths of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. With the collusion of President Bill Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, NAFTA was passed (during the middle of the night, by the way). Now, President G.W. Bush wants to extend NAFTA with his push for FTAA. The result of FTAA would mean that instead of American jobs and industries moving to Mexico, they could move to even cheaper and more backward countries such as Bolivia and Peru. And let's not overlook China. America's trade deficit with China is staggering! According to a recent Washington Times report, "The trade deficit jumped 17 percent to a record $489 billion last year, propelled by an explosion in trade with China. "America's $124 billion deficit with China is now twice its trade gap with Japan, three times its deficit with Mexico, and substantially above its $100 billion deficit with all of Western Europe." "Free trade" has all but expunged America's manufacturing industries. Our textile plants have mostly vanished. The same is true for our electronics industry and even our steel industry. The vast majority of America's giant corporations are now importing goods from overseas. The cost of this insanity in terms of American jobs, wages, and strain on American families is incalculable. Most American families are working two, three, or even more jobs just to try and make ends meet. Combining meager wages with an ever increasing tax burden means that most American families are barely able to keep their heads above water, while many others are languishing in obscene debt. While average America fights to tread water, the CEOs, CFOs, and other high level executives of the multinational corporations are raking in monstrous profits. Multinational corporations accomplish this by hiring slave or cheap labor from these third world and socialist countries and then import their goods back to America practically duty-free. All the while, these same countries require the U.S. to pay huge duties for our exports. So-called "free trade" is not only unconstitutional, it is perverse! It makes America more and more dependent upon foreign nations, which makes us more and more vulnerable to those who seek to harm us. Suzanne the Moderate Mr. Jack, I do agree with you, additional facts and reasons
First of all, there is no such thing as free trade. Trade, by its very definition, requires the exchange of commerce. Therefore, in any trade exchange, there are purchasers and sellers. Someone pays the bill in each and every trade deal. The only thing free in these modern “free trade” agreements is the free ride that the internationalists receive from our federal government, which is being paid by American workers with lower wages and the loss of American jobs. NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and now President Bush’s proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) are not only blatantly unconstitutional, they are downright harmful to the security and interests of the United States.
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution plainly gives Congress the responsibility to “regulate commerce with foreign nations.” That Congress has willingly ceded this responsibility and that the President has wrongfully assumed this responsibility means that both Congress and the President have violated their oaths of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
With the collusion of President Bill Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, NAFTA was passed (during the middle of the night, by the way). Now, President G.W. Bush wants to extend NAFTA with his push for FTAA. The result of FTAA would mean that instead of American jobs and industries moving to Mexico, they could move to even cheaper and more backward countries such as Bolivia and Peru. And let’s not overlook China.
America’s trade deficit with China is staggering! According to a recent Washington Times report, “The trade deficit jumped 17 percent to a record $489 billion last year, propelled by an explosion in trade with China.
“America’s $124 billion deficit with China is now twice its trade gap with Japan, three times its deficit with Mexico, and substantially above its $100 billion deficit with all of Western Europe.”
“Free trade” has all but expunged America’s manufacturing industries. Our textile plants have mostly vanished. The same is true for our electronics industry and even our steel industry. The vast majority of America’s giant corporations are now importing goods from overseas. The cost of this insanity in terms of American jobs, wages, and strain on American families is incalculable.
Most American families are working two, three, or even more jobs just to try and make ends meet. Combining meager wages with an ever increasing tax burden means that most American families are barely able to keep their heads above water, while many others are languishing in obscene debt.
While average America fights to tread water, the CEOs, CFOs, and other high level executives of the multinational corporations are raking in monstrous profits. Multinational corporations accomplish this by hiring slave or cheap labor from these third world and socialist countries and then import their goods back to America practically duty-free. All the while, these same countries require the U.S. to pay huge duties for our exports.
So-called “free trade” is not only unconstitutional, it is perverse! It makes America more and more dependent upon foreign nations, which makes us more and more vulnerable to those who seek to harm us.

Suzanne the Moderate

]]> By: Mr. Jack http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-7826 Mr. Jack Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:46:09 +0000 /?p=325#comment-7826 Pizz. 1, thank you for admitting I’m not a liberal, I must say you by far have one of the most open minds as far as conservatives I’ve met.

2,when did I say China’s GDP didn’t have an affect on the economy? I said China’s Yuan is the thing that’s going to kill the dollar, as stated in one of my previous articles ” and now for a real issue” what I stated was that the health of the American stock market has no indication on the health of the economy.
3. How does “take china for example…” Bash Bush? That subject has absolutely nothing to do with him accept that he’s trying to convince the Chinese to keep their Yuan artificially low so that our Mortgage rates don’t skyrocket, and our Dollar diminish in value.

I think you’re seriously misreading what I’m saying.

]]> By: pizz http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2005/job-growth/#comment-7811 pizz Fri, 03 Jun 2005 03:16:09 +0000 /?p=325#comment-7811 This is my last comment on this issue. 1. China's production costs, GDP, and (especially)the market have a HUGE effect on economy. To think that it does not is to be completely ignorant to say the least. 2. Your putting down Bush and the economy and then you say "Take China for example..". What do you think the reader is going to think? They'll think you disagree. If you agreed in the first place why didn't you just say it in your article? There would be no misunderstanding over the context your putting it in. 3. Ok, so your not a liberal. Your a progressive. This is my last comment on this issue.
1. China’s production costs, GDP, and (especially)the market have a HUGE effect on economy. To think that it does not is to be completely ignorant to say the least.
2. Your putting down Bush and the economy and then you say “Take China for example..”. What do you think the reader is going to think? They’ll think you disagree. If you agreed in the first place why didn’t you just say it in your article? There would be no misunderstanding over the context your putting it in.
3. Ok, so your not a liberal. Your a progressive.

]]>