Bush Economy the worst since Herbert Hoover

[2Lexus430s]

its Time in the Market, not Timing the Market

[BAWLEX94]

ScLex 3.0

that was a well said conclusion and just to concur, i too respect your opion.

I echo your sentiment also on people's party affiliations. I'm from NC, which you could probably guess is quite conservative. I know your from Florida, which i think tends to go either way, if not predominantly conservative. I remember High School where everyone i knew was a Republican just cause "daddy" was or cause they liked the color red. So i completely understand resentment towards those with no grounded ideological beliefs. But we're all here in the same boat together. The only way to create change is to do it yourself.....in other words....if you don't like the way things are going now, then for the love of god.....PLEASE.....vote next november....i definitely will be (and can't wait). It really burns me to hear that more people voted for the last 'American Idol' contestant then did in the last presidential election.

[bitkahuna]

Originally posted by lexguynj
Why are luxury car sales still strong in this poor economy?

After 9/11 and the economic bubble burst I think a lot of people who still have money (and even those who don't but like big payments) are saying who knows what tomorrow brings, I might as well drive a nice car for now!

[2Lexus430s]

Originally posted by bitkahuna
After 9/11 and the economic bubble burst I think a lot of people who still have money (and even those who don't but like big payments) are saying who knows what tomorrow brings, I might as well drive a nice car for now!

Hence they get a Lexus

Owning a MB is sort of like 9-11 itself.. You never know what will happen tomorrow...

[SDuquette]

This may not be a shared view with a lot of people, but......................

I have been able to be hired with 8 companies since Jan. 2002. Given I didn't like some and moved up from some, but pretty much if you are looking for work, you will find it. There is no reason for there to be a long term unemployment for anyone, unless they are lazy and want to leech off of those of us with jobs. I currently work 2 jobs and do some work in my spare time for extra money (photography, computers, some brochure designing, or whatever else I can do). I think many Americans let their ego and pride get in the way of employment, hence the reason a laid off engineer is jobless for a year. What the hell is that about. If you can get through college, you can find a job, sure it may not be a dream job, but it is something to hold you over until something better comes along. Stop living off my paychecks, and being lazy asses is what I have to say. I work hard for my money and would like to keep as much of it as possible. Hell, between two jobs I was making salads at a BBQ restaurant. Sure it wasn't glamorous, but it paid my truck payment and insurance, and I was shopping salvage yards for parts to make some honda turbo kits and sell them on ebay to pay the rent. Work is out there if you want it, PERIOD, that is all I have to say.

PS-- I had an argument earlier this week about this, so I'm venting a little

[2Lexus430s]

You are completely right.

My Company employs a few thousand people. We currently have over 200 positions available for Engineers (Levels 1, 2, and 3), Technicians, Managers, Sales Reps, Business Sales Reps.

Some of them only require a High School Degree. Most of them require a College Level Degree. But there are plenty of jobs out there. It takes someone with motivation to acquire one though.

SDuquette= Awesome point pointed out man.

[J.P.]

"My Company employs a few thousand people. We currently have over 200 positions available for Engineers (Levels 1, 2, and 3), Technicians, Managers, Sales Reps, Business Sales Reps."

Hum.. My company staffs companies like yours

But yes, you can find work, you may have to drive, you may have to relocate, you may have to do something you don't want to do, but you can work and make a living.

[SDuquette]

guess this thread wouldn't be complete without this??

[bitkahuna]

Originally posted by SDuquette
guess this thread wouldn't be complete without this??

LMAO. Priceless.

[lex400sc]

Jesus Christ, I should have known better that this thread was going to spill over into a Clinton-Liberal whinefest. You are all horribly off-topic in pointing the finger back at Clinton and the big bad liberals. Granted the recession began in the final months of Clinton's terrm, but recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle, they occur regularly and usually only last no more than 11 months (until recently). SCLexus, you like to blame Clinton for 9/11 also, but you forget that Bush got memos from domestic AND foreign intelligence which detailed the attacks to a degree, and he had nine months in office before they were to be carried out. How careless of the gung-ho security President to pay such little attention to such a large threat for so long. I sometimes wonder if he knew and allowed the attacks to be carried out only because it would open the door to an unabated all-out assault on the Middle East. But I digress...

The problem I'm pointing out with George Bush is his idiotic supply-side delusion in his obviously failed economic policy. If tax cuts didn't work in 2001, didn't work in 2002, didn't work in 2003, what the hell makes you think they will work in 2004? We were told for three years that the sunshine was just around the corner. Hell the recession technically ended months ago according to Bush economists! So why are people still losing jobs? I'm tired of people pulling the 9/11 card too. The immediate ramifications on the economy are undeniable, but come on, most people forgot about the threat a year later and got back to their daily grind. I don't know a damn person that bases a business or personal finance decision upon 9/11 attacks. It's moreso related to uncertainty. An uncertainty that Bush breeds on a weekly basis. Bit, you remember the message of fear in media from Bowling, right? I can relate if all back to Bush's Orange Alerts, and all the July 4th press conferences warning of ominous attacks and imminent threats. Then there was the overblown threat of Anthrax. Then of course the fear campaign with Iraq launching their non-existant ICBMs to California loaded with nonexistant WMD. Funny how sure they were of that intelligence a year ago. I forget specifics now, but I remember a year ago, I was bombarded with warnings and alerts from all kinds of administration officials, almost DAILY, trying to scare the public into a panic state so that we would be reassured in going to war with the big bad threat in the Persian Gulf. And I can't begin to tell you how overblown and outright untrue the propaganda was concerning Iraq's capabilities.

And how dare whichever jackass said "you're just lazy if you're unemployeed"?! Riiiight wise guy! People have been steadily losing jobs for more than three years non-stop and by some fuzzy logic there exists a bunch of phantom jobs for the millions of unemployeed, but they are just too lazy to apply for them? Come on! My dad used to have 250 employees work for him when he first took his job in 2000. He now only has 18 people in his department and he works 12 hour days himself to keep the dept on schedule. RMMGS4's department at 3Com no longer exists it's been downsized to nothing! Peoplesoft started building a huge ass million-square-foot addition to their headquarters in my town a few years ago and it's been sitting completely dormant ever since. I have a feeling they fully intended to fill that building with hundreds more employees, but are instead downsizing as well. Yet there are all these jobs out there for people, but they'd all rather be lazy and collect a fraction of what they could be making so that they can sit around on their asses all day? These are people that went to 9-5s every day before they were forced out of jobs, but for some reason they've 180'ed their attitude and would rather be bums than gainfully employeed? Hmm...

SCLexus, I can tell, is a product of the Reagan Era. He is hardcore partisan, blindly attacks everything Democratic, and I'm sure he's one of the ones that loves democracy but wishes the Democrats would just go away (what a great democracy a one-party system would make! ). He is the last of the great conservative dinosaurs that still uses the term "liberal" as a bad word, lol. It makes me chuckle when I hear it too.

Bit, I'm not a cynic just because you don't hear me starting happy-go-lucky threads. When I'm happy I'm enjoying things and I'm not out to inform people so, but when I'm upset about something, I need to vent and thus I start a thread on CL. I just happen to have a lot of negative things to say, politically, because we do have an extremist for a president. you are correct, the world is globalized and very complex and elicate politically. However, we have a president who has undone years of international and environmental progress. I actually miss the more prudent, more tactful Bush Sr. to the current Bozo in office. Hell I would actually take Reagan over Bush Jr.! I think Bush Jr. is more extremist than Reagan ever was in practice. And to clarify, I would consider myself libertarian in ideology, however, I recently registered with the Democratic party just to give them a bit more pull (but when you consider the structure of the four major ideologies, I think most people fall into the libertarian or moderate ranges. There are few *true* far-right wing authoritarians out there).

I always tell me people the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans know why they are Republicans, democrats do it because it gives them for freedom to do whatever they want and blame all the worlds problems on Republicans.

That is such BS. Don't pretend to know a group of people you are c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y alienated from, and furthermore, don't attempt to generalize a group of people smarter than yourself. You don't even know how to seperate ideology from political parties. Republican isn't an ideology, Democrat isn't an ideology. You are a product of mass media infotainment; oversimplifying a political party by the ideology they most frequently associate with. But since you like to paint broad strokes, let me borrow a few words from the great William Gladstone " Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. " That is a far more accurate characterization.

The final point I would like to make however is:
The country is not run by President Bush. The Country is run by the Government which is made up of Democrats, Republicans, Independent, Liberal, and conservatives. The president can make choices, but when it comes down to it EVERYONE in congress, the Senate, and the other branches of our government choose what happen. To blame all the problems on one person is not right and not morally right. He is trying to do the right thing but at the same time he is completely human and has (and will) make mistakes.. Nobodies perfect, but I do love this President because he has a deep faith and follows it well.

I don't think you quite understand American government pal. The GOP controls a majority in the Congress, the lawmaking body. That means they create the committees, they prioritize legislation, they appropriate tax dollars, and they ultimately control what laws are ratified. I don't suppose you'd understand the jerimandering of Congressional districts in Texas and Colorado, and why the GOP would want to do that? The GOP controls the executive office, they control appointments to the Judiciary, not coincidentally also a GOP majority, they control policymaking, diplomacy, the budget, and of course the military. The entire country is controlled by the GOP currently, so you can blame the faults of the government on the Republicans in every instance that Democrats opposed but lost anyway.

I would write more on the topic, but right now I am stretched for time as it is. I barely skimmed through this thread so don't go accusing me of avoiding anyone's posts.

[lex400sc]

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
the Washington Post is probably one of the most liberal papers out their..

You're kidding right!? Please explain to me what makes you come to that conclusion. Let's not forego the fact that NewsMax is an openly far-right wing news outlet that borders on outright propaganda . But you overlooked that fact when you cited them as a source, didn't you .

[Baby ///M3]

Interesting thread.

Sorry for not having too much to contribute (it's late and my 3 hour sleep last night is not helping, either) but I do want to give props. to both sides for having very good, and valid arguments.

Being a conservative Baptist, I've seen it all happened back in my days at Cal. What's funny is that even though I would never be a liberal democrat, I do know for a fact that I've surely learned how to peacefully co-exist with them (liberals).

Let's all get along.

Jon

PS. SCLex3.0. For some reason, you reminded me of Wally George.

[lex400sc]

I'm sorry but this entire post wreaks of ignorance...

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
I don't understand why people can't figure some things out.

For instance:

Do you think that we might need help Policing Iraq from the pu$$y Iraqi Gorilla Fighters who attack our soldiers then run? YES WE DO.... Thats why we are calling on the help of the UN (primarily Countries IN the UN).. Unless you think we should provide all the policing ourselves... if so, tell our soldiers that.

Sophmoric language aside, you completely miss the meaning of this situation. First Bush casts aside the UN as a worthless archiac body of indecisive, self-interested pacifists, then he digs himself into a financial and PR hole by waging war and occupying a country that doesn't want him there, and then he comes crawling back to the UN for help in managing his mistake. And people like you don't even consider that! Your tone is that you EXPECT no less than the UN's full cooperation after the U.S arrogance and audacity. What is worse is that unconditional help isn't even accepted. The terms of Bush's international assistance is that the U.S. commanders gain the full command of foreign peacekeepers, so that we are basically using other people's money and troops as voice-less tools.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Also....

Do you people know that this war is expected to cost the Government $500,000,000,000 before it is all over??? Wow, I think thats alot of money, don't you?.. well lets research a bit futher.. Did you people know that IF this war does end up costing that much money that over $475,000,000,000 will go RIGHT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY??? wow, I still think thats alot of money..

I don't know where you got both those figures, but I'm assuming they are both crude estimates. Do you have sources for them?

The $500 billion you speak of belongs to us, the people. Were we able to decide if that money was to be spent on policing Iraq? Nope. We were scared into a war that was estimated to cost much less by the Bush Admin, and Congress approved of the military action under the premise that it would cost X number of dollars and that there was an imminent threat in Iraq. We now know both conditions were untrue. But Congress will continue to fund this war because it is a PR nightmare to be the Congressman that voted to pull the funding from under the troops----even though it's the only way Congress can end the conflict, and inside that's what most people want anyway.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
What do you people think.. you do think that when the government spends that money they are just burning it? No, they are spending that money with American Companies on American Machine provided by American Labor. That money goes right back into the economy..

The premise for war wasn't to stimulate the American economy by giving industry something to do. And that's a poor and shameful excuse to use in justifying a war anyway. The $475 billion you speak of isn't returned to taxpayers. It is likely returned in oil trade to oil companies and last time I checked, oil and gasoline still costs Americans money regardless of how it was obtained. Anyway, most of the spoils of war end up lining the pockets of corporations and their banks, and a small percentage to the employees of Halliburton and Brown & Roots in Iraq. It does not come back to the American people.

You think it's a good return to spend $500 billion in Iraq and get $475 billion back into corporate bank accounts? Money sitting in Halliburton banks is not considered economic stimulation. Unless it is invested by the company, it is stagnation. What if we spent the $500 billion revenue internally/domesticaly instead? Now there's a cooky idea! And what do you know, we'd have an extra $25 billion that way too! Here's a crazy idea: take the $500 billion you wasted away in Iraq and use it to rebuild America. You employ American workers, you stimulate American economy, you gain the benefit of internal improvement through whatever public works, and you save the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers and bystanders as well as your international reputation! If we're going to burn money, might as well burn it within America where we know we can't lose either way!

[LB Lex]

“Jesus Christ, I should have known better that this thread was going to spill over into a Clinton-Liberal whinefest. You are all horribly off-topic in pointing the finger back at Clinton and the big bad liberals. Granted the recession began in the final months of Clinton's terrm, but recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle, they occur regularly and usually only last no more than 11 months (until recently).”

You’ve always fail to recognize this was caused by Clinton. His eight years of presidency saw a huge economic upturn, but after the Enron scandals we realized why: Clinton failed to watch over these large companies that inflated profits and earnings, therefore leading to even more investment. This balloon based on deception grew so large that when it popped the economy just busted. Do you really think that eight years of economic deception and lack of oversight can be solved as easily as you think it can be? You expect any president to have done a better job, but this was monumental. Companies deceived us and stole our money, why continue trusting them. The war on terror also dealt a blow to government budgets (although you hate it when people use the "terror card" and say the effects of terror are gone because people got back to a “daily grind”. That’s ridiculous, just because people feel okay does not mean our government is not spending money on our defense. And turning a blind eye at the huge expenses spent on defending this country is pretty ignorant).

I agree that the tax cuts were worthless, but on the same token I don’t believe the rich should be taxed as much as they are. Democrats seem to believe that they are entitled to take more money from the rich just because they are rich. They worked hard and succeeded. Democrats shouldn’t waste so much money on social programs that recipients believe they are entitled to and rely on as permanent income. This dependence hurts more in the long run because they will continue to live on hand-outs instead of positively participating in the economy.

“How careless of the gung-ho security President to pay such little attention to such a large threat for so long.”

Your buddy Clinton did the same but you never say anything about it. Why should Bush all of a sudden pay attention to someone who Clinton ignored for years?

“I sometimes wonder if he knew and allowed the attacks to be carried out only because it would open the door to an unabated all-out assault on the Middle East.”

You’re a raging liberal, that’s why you have these thoughts.

“It's moreso related to uncertainty. An uncertainty that Bush breeds on a weekly basis. Bit, you remember the message of fear in media from Bowling, right? I can relate if all back to Bush's Orange Alerts, and all the July 4th press conferences warning of ominous attacks and imminent threats. Then there was the overblown threat of Anthrax. Then of course the fear campaign with Iraq launching their non-existant ICBMs to California loaded with nonexistant WMD. Funny how sure they were of that intelligence a year ago. I forget specifics now, but I remember a year ago, I was bombarded with warnings and alerts from all kinds of administration officials, almost DAILY, trying to scare the public into a panic state so that we would be reassured in going to war with the big bad threat in the Persian Gulf. And I can't begin to tell you how overblown and outright untrue the propaganda was concerning Iraq's capabilities.”

According to you, the Bush administration issue these alerts to scare us so we would be more apt to go to war. I bet you would be the first person to slam Bush if he gave no warning and an attack occurred.

[LB Lex]

"Sophmoric language aside, you completely miss the meaning of this situation. First Bush casts aside the UN as a worthless archiac body of indecisive, self-interested pacifists"

Hmm, I guess Bush should have followed France and Germany even though these countries opposed the war because they had so much money financialy tied to Iraq. Bush could care less if France and Germany are involved, we don't need their money. There are other nations that are willing, and are, helping us with troops and money.

". . .and then he comes crawling back to the UN for help in managing his mistake."

I guess you want the U.S. to fit the bill for removing a dictator who harbored and funded terrorists, attacked other countries (Iran, Kuwait, Israel), and terrorised his people. I guess this goes back to the Democratic belief that our government (the US) should fit the bill for everything, just like the dependence-inducing social programs.

"The premise for war wasn't to stimulate the American economy by giving industry something to do. And that's a poor and shameful excuse to use in justifying a war anyway. The $475 billion you speak of isn't returned to taxpayers. It is likely returned in oil trade to oil companies and last time I checked, oil and gasoline still costs Americans money regardless of how it was obtained. Anyway, most of the spoils of war end up lining the pockets of corporations and their banks, and a small percentage to the employees of Halliburton and Brown & Roots in Iraq. It does not come back to the American people."

Umm, looks like you missed his point: the money spent on the war is reinvested in American companies is a side-effect of the war, not the premise.