Were you better off under a Democratic administration?

[KG6JTB]

Most on the right will say that Dems will raise your taxes. Probably true. And, as such, Conservatives will always look for ways to cut taxes.

But what would you rather have? Low taxes, but a weak dollar, weak personal income, corporate corruption, unstable markets, high inflation?

More simply put, how about stagnant wages and lack of gains in your stock portfolio, but you have less taken out of your check?

I seem to remember having more buying power in the 1990s. Interest rates were decent, I paid more in taxes, but my income grew and so did my investments. We also had a couple years of budget surpluses at the federal level.

I think I'd rather have a higher tax bracket as long as my net-net would better, and I could count on growth.

[W4DFW]

Gosh, I thought interests rates and unemployment were pretty low right now. AND that the economy has grown EVERY QUARTER since around July of 2003. Plus I'm paying less taxes than in the 1990s and by and large inflation has not been an issue for most of this decade.

If I were poor I wouldn't mind a higher tax bracket, since I'd still be paying very little in taxes. Which, of course, is why Dems don't mind a higher tax rate. Raising your taxes by 5% on $20,000 dollars a year income ain't squat compared to the fellow making $500,000 dollars.

I like things just the way they are.

[N4VGB]

Give me another Jimmy Carter! I'll do the same thing again, drop most stocks and go to interest accounts! Even though I thought Jimmy Carter completely incompetent, the man was good to my pockets. :):):)

[KB1KIX]

Har!

Simple answer - I've done better the past six years than I have ever before.

The 90's, I had more taxes which lowered MY buying power.

Even though I'm a conservative, I don't support Bush in much of his spending - he's grown the government as much as Clinton has.

Jonathan

[NL7W]

Heck, give me another Clinton market run-up and crash. Yep-sure...

I made the mistake of moving back to the lesser-48 during the Summer of 2000, just before the Clinton years' hollow stock market collapsed (the Dot.Com Crash). I thought all was good after being offering so much in options and benefits to come south and take a telecom engineering job designing multi-state fiber optic backbone networks.

Little did I know... I was out of a job exactly one year after moving to the lesser-48 from Alaska -- all due to 90's greed and the hugely inflated tech run-up -- and subsequent crash of tech and telecom companies. It's difficult seeing your company's stock drop from the mid-twenties to far less than $1 in a few short trading days. In a few short months, over 200,000 telecom employees across the Nation were unemployed due to the Dot.Com Crash. Clinton's market regulators sucked -- allowing deceit and greed to rule for so long, and at all levels.

I ended up moving to Seattle to take a slightly better position since nothing was available in the Midwest -- eventually relocating my family back to Alaska in the long run.

I know where my bread is best buttered -- and it isn't under any Dumbocrat administration I know. Conversely, my recent telecom industry pay has climbed 25% in the last 3 years, and I do not have to commute to work. That not having to commute has probably acted as another 15 to 20% pay increase also. Life has been good for me under GW Bush.

[w8znx]

the neo cons only cut taxes for the rich
top 5% do great
those of us making less than 100 grand a year
get screwed by the the neo cons

Bush has spend more money
than any other pres in history

the dems tax and spend
hell
the repubs borrow and spend

now they spend even more than the dem do

when the neo cons get done
the Peoples Republic of China will own this country

[NL7W]

the neo cons only cut taxes for the rich
top 5% do great
those of us making less than 100 grand a year
get screwed by the the neo cons

Bush has spend more money
than any other pres in history

the dems tax and spend
hell
the repubs borrow and spend

now they spend even more than the dem do

when the neo cons get done
the Peoples Republic of China will own this country

So why is it the Clinton years' economy screwed me? Why is it my family has flourished under the current administration? Tell me, please.

Full, punctuated sentences would be nice. Or, is that too much to ask?

73.

[N5NPO]

I am doing better now than ever before.
I belive that under GW Bush, governement has grown way to much.
The republican controlled congress under him is as much to blame.
Now, since the Dems have re-gained control of congress, nothing has gotten better. We still have high gasoline prices and inflatioin has gone up. They said they would do something about the price of gas if elected back in 2006.
Back then, gas was in the $2.20 per gal. range. What it is it now? $3.839 is the lowest I have seen around here lately.
The high gas prices makes everything else go up. When is the dem congress gonna do something about it like Nancy P. said she would?
I guess it was just campagn retoric.

[n9yb]

All I know is...I can spend my money more wisely than the government.

[K8YZK]

Now Steve don't blame Clinton for the Dot Com Crash, that is all the investors trying to make a quick buck, which a lot did, but then a lot like us, lost. Hey put your money in Oil now, with the companies making $10 billion profit per quarter get it before they bust, with GM now going to push their alternative car(volt) and get out of the SUV/Truck side, Oil is going to be the new dot com bust.

[N9MOQ]

. .

[ac4ut]

Since so much has changed for me personally ,it is almost impossible to make an accurate determination.
I make more each year and save more now ,however I no longer have mortgages expenses, car payments etc. It hard to tell if it an economic growth issue or just normal progression.
Of course I have the mountains that shield me against tornados and inflation.

[K3UD]

I remember the double and high single digit inflation numbers under the Carter administration. We also had a fuel price run up, and a 18 - 21% prime rate that killed off a lot of small farmers and businesses. It was tough to buy a house, and in some many cases a new car because of the very high interest rates on mortgages and car financing. I purchased a house in late 1979 and the interest was 11.5 and I was happy to get it at the time. This was the era or the so called rust belt when large industries almost ceased to exist. On the other hand the federal government raised the minimum wage to coincide with the inflation numbers each year from almost the start of the 70s. The worst of it was from 1975 - 1980. On the other hand government backed bonds had a rather nice return. I remember my mother in law getting upwards of 11-13% for several years.

I sometimes wonder how we were able to have "guns and butter" under the Johnson and Nixon administration until about 1972. Inflation was low in the 60s and we were able to fight the war, one person in the family earning living wage salaries, have more benefits at work than we seem to today, decent returns on investment, and
and low interest rates for housing. This was also the time when the government was financing the "war on poverty" and building lots of planned government subsidized housing for the poor as well as launching Medicaid and Medicare, Food Stamp subsidies and everything else that came with the war on poverty.

My take on the Clinton administration is that, by and large, he was the in the right place at the right time. A time when high tech was ramping up and AL Gore's "information highway" was taking shape. GNP was increasing every year, right up to when the bubble burst in 1999 / 2000. Of course it could have not gone on for much longer anyway since many of the upstart tech / internet businesses often had very little behind them, but venture capitalists were spreading lots money around the industry, hoping to latch on the the next big thing. When it all fell apart, a lot of people lost substantial amounts of money. In my case, my 401K was about 50% invested in high tech. I lost 38% of the balance. It took 4 years to get it back up to where it was in 1999. Clinton was a recipient of what became an overheated economy awash with money. We all thought that there would be no end to it. Build an E Commerce site and someone would come along and give you a bucket full of money. Good times until 99.

73
George
K3UD

[wd0mr]

So why is it the Clinton years' economy screwed me? Why is it my family has flourished under the current administration? Tell me, please.

Full, punctuated sentences would be nice. Or, is that too much to ask?

73.

The majority of people flourished under the Clinton admin.. the republicans would have you believe it was because of the repub congress.. but once they gained control of the Pres AND congress, the borrow and spend crowd took over... How long can the country continue to borrow from China??? All polling data shows that most people are not doing better.. It is time for a change and Obama will make the change happen...

[W3MIV]

To cite Bob Hope: "Thanks for the memories," George. Wish it brought a smile of nostalgia; as it is, it brings only a sort of neuralgia. In the seat.

<<<<<groan>>>>>

I remember the double and high single digit inflation numbers under the Carter administration. We also had a fuel price run up, and a 18 - 21% prime rate that killed off a lot of small farmers and businesses. It was tough to buy a house, and in some many cases a new car because of the very high interest rates on mortgages and car financing. I purchased a house in late 1979 and the interest was 11.5 and I was happy to get it at the time. This was the era or the so called rust belt when large industries almost ceased to exist. On the other hand the federal government raised the minimum wage to coincide with the inflation numbers each year from almost the start of the 70s. The worst of it was from 1975 - 1980. On the other hand government backed bonds had a rather nice return. I remember my mother in law getting upwards of 11-13% for several years.

I sometimes wonder how we were able to have "guns and butter" under the Johnson and Nixon administration until about 1972. Inflation was low in the 60s and we were able to fight the war, one person in the family earning living wage salaries, have more benefits at work than we seem to today, decent returns on investment, and
and low interest rates for housing. This was also the time when the government was financing the "war on poverty" and building lots of planned government subsidized housing for the poor as well as launching Medicaid and Medicare, Food Stamp subsidies and everything else that came with the war on poverty.

My take on the Clinton administration is that, by and large, he was the in the right place at the right time. A time when high tech was ramping up and AL Gore's "information highway" was taking shape. GNP was increasing every year, right up to when the bubble burst in 1999 / 2000. Of course it could have not gone on for much longer anyway since many of the upstart tech / internet businesses often had very little behind them, but venture capitalists were spreading lots money around the industry, hoping to latch on the the next big thing. When it all fell apart, a lot of people lost substantial amounts of money. In my case, my 401K was about 50% invested in high tech. I lost 38% of the balance. It took 4 years to get it back up to where it was in 1999. Clinton was a recipient of what became an overheated economy awash with money. We all thought that there would be no end to it. Build an E Commerce site and someone would come along and give you a bucket full of money. Good times until 99.

73
George
K3UD

[KB1PLB]

Gas Prices previous admin. .75 - $1.40
Gas This Admin 2.00 - $4.00....... and rising

Food prices have doubled in the last eight years

Heating oil 4X increase.

Housing prices blown out of proportion.

The writing is on the wall.

Right now we plan trips to the store and just go once a week. We no longer got out for a cruise and go window shopping for the heck of it. BTW my salary has gone up about 4% each year over the last 8 the spending that money can do in much less. If you froze heating oil prices right now it would cost me $1150 to fill my tank that would last five to six weeks. What ever you say I was living a lot better off the previous admin.

[n2ize]

Gas Prices previous admin. .75 - $1.40
Gas This Admin 2.00 - $4.00....... and rising

Food prices have doubled in the last eight years

Heating oil 4X increase.

Housing prices blown out of proportion.

The writing is on the wall.

Right now we plan trips to the store and just go once a week. We no longer got out for a cruise and go window shopping for the heck of it. BTW my salary has gone up about 4% each year over the last 8 the spending that money can do in much less. If you froze heating oil prices right now it would cost me $1150 to fill my tank that would last five to six weeks. What ever you say I was living a lot better off the previous admin.

But But But...Rush told me ...

[N9XR]

Gosh, I thought interests rates and unemployment were pretty low right now. AND that the economy has grown EVERY QUARTER since around July of 2003. Plus I'm paying less taxes than in the 1990s and by and large inflation has not been an issue for most of this decade.

If I were poor I wouldn't mind a higher tax bracket, since I'd still be paying very little in taxes. Which, of course, is why Dems don't mind a higher tax rate. Raising your taxes by 5% on $20,000 dollars a year income ain't squat compared to the fellow making $500,000 dollars.

I like things just the way they are.

Gorsch. Do the math. The person who's tax goes up 5% who is making $20k a year is in the 15% tax bracket. They will take home $16,000 a year with a 5% increase in taxes. The person making $500k a year is in the 35% bracket. With a 5% increase, they take home $300k a year.

Let's see. Would I rather take home $300k a year or $16k a year? Well that is the difference between you and me. I would pick the $300k a year. You can have the $16k a year.

That was easy.

[W4MAJ]

Is this today's poll? Okay, I'll vote. Was I better under a democratic president? Well, I'd hate to be misunderstood so I'll try to be perfectly clear...

YES

Next...

[K7JEM]

Gas Prices previous admin. .75 - $1.40
Gas This Admin 2.00 - $4.00....... and rising


Where did the other 60 cents go?

Most of the rise has come in the last few years, but it is worldwide. If these were figures only for the USA, they might mean something.

Blaming all of our economy on any administration is in error.

Like others, I agree that the worst years were the Carter years where we had inflation, unemployment, high interest rates, etc. But it can't all be blamed on him. There are always many factors going on that create these situations.

Joe

[W5JO]

Like others, I agree that the worst years were the Carter years where we had inflation, unemployment, high interest rates, etc. But it can't all be blamed on him. There are always many factors going on that create these situations.

Joe


Put the blame where it belongs. The expectations of the voter. How many people actually believe in Global Warming? You have enough people believing it that the pols are running around trying to come up with something to get votes. The bad thing is that what works for you may not work for me nor be good for anyone's pocketbook.

An example is the ban on incandescent bulbs. Drives up to price to everyone to save just a bit of energy but creates disposal problems far worse than the benefit. Oh Wait, we will create jobs that our education system doesn't teach and if they do can't get qualified student to enroll.

Until the voters discover that one-size does not fit all and demand their ranking members stop dictating national policy when it is not needed, you will get what you have and what your favorite lobby requests. Vote for the idiots and it will continue. Both Democrats and Republicans are rushing to be first in this stupid game so you will vote for them.

[W3MIV]

Until the voters discover that one-size does not fit all and demand their ranking members stop dictating national policy when it is not needed, you will get what you have and what your favorite lobby requests. Vote for the idiots and it will continue. Both Democrats and Republicans are rushing to be first in this stupid game so you will vote for them.

Utopia does not exist. Nor, alas, does discipline at any level.

[W7WV]

Can't be worse than what we have now.
But we will have a choice again in another 4 years.
It's just a matter of trying to figure who who is the lessor of the evils as far as I am concerned. :D

[W8EFA]

Once again this thread reminds me of the adage ""People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

You may have PERSONALLY been better off now than the 90's however that makes about as much scientific sense as saying there can't be global warming because it was cold today.

The 90's were indisputably one (if not the best) decades of overall economic growth and health in our entire History. President Bill Clinton had the largest economic expansion in American history on his watch. You can argue how much Clinton was reponsible or how much was he was lucky to be president of that time. However if you listen to Greenspan he gave a lot of credit to Clinton for policies that helped and didn't screw it up.

Just kills the Republicans they have such a loser in GWB while Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of office rating of any President since World War II!:p

[W3MIV]

Can't be worse than what we have now.

Wanna bet?

[W5JO]

Once again this thread reminds me of the adage ""People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

You may have PERSONALLY been better off now than the 90's however that makes about as much scientific sense as saying there can't be global warming because it was cold today.

The 90's were indisputably one (if not the best) decades of overall economic growth and health in our entire History. You can argue how much Clinton was responsible or how much was he was lucky to be president of that time. However if you listen to Greenspan he gave a lot of credit to Clinton for policies that helped and didn't screw it up.

Just kills the Republicans they have such a loser in GWB while Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of office rating of any President since World War II!:p


Your "facts" may be correct but how they were derived may be off base. During the first Bush term the economy struggled. People were not buying anything much. Interest rates remain high suppressing large ticket purchases, etc.

Along came Clinton and enjoyed the interest rate cuts of the Fed beginning about 2 years after he entered office. Add to that the pressure of the Republican "Contract with America" when Republicans controlled congress.

Clinton, being a wise man, chose to govern from the middle and dropped his wife's health care plan because of lack of support. He signed welfare reform that saved this country untold billions, not because he wanted to, but because he knew the attitude of the voters at the time. With a Democratic congress thing probably would have been much different.

Real growth started about 2 years into his first term. Money freed from the government that could go into the economy and the pent up demand for big ticket items fueled moderate growth. The explosive growth was a false bubble.

Y2K was your answer to the last 2 years of his presidency. That bubble had a hole in it in 1999 and later into 2000. It sort of validated what Regan said about trickle down economics. More money floating around and you will catch more.

Growth from here out will require several things. Realization that to beat the competition (call it China if you want), we must adjust our workforce to produce at the same or greater level as they do. We must encourage people to innovate and have a clear unobstructed path to production and market delivery (get the lawyers and greedy union bosses out of the picture would be a good step). And we must stop relying on government to provide us a living or inordinate protection, be it job protection or personal.

Given this and other reforms our standard of living will increase and so will the money in your pocket, provide you are willing to adjust for the jobs available. But remember a national government will do nothing but deflate the balloon and meddle in our economy. After all what does government produce that adds to our GDP?

[N9XR]

... The explosive growth was a false bubble.

...

Indeed. That is the point I have tried to get across. It was not a bubble at all, but rather the peaking before the Bush disaster.

[KC4RAN]

Sure, it's easy to have a 65% approval rating when you tell everyone you've balanced the budget and you're going to create a surplus. Of course, when you don't mention that you managed to do that by gutting the intelligence agencies and the military, forcing them to cannibalize two, three or even four broken systems to make one because they have no money for spare parts, then it's easy to "balance the budget".

At some point, that comes back to bite you... just as it did us.

[KD6NIG]

I'd say its worse....income wise and ability to afford stuff wise under this administration.

And honestly thats what really matters to most people.

However, back in the "dot com" era everyone has brought up, I was unemployed for nearly 6 months. I fell back on the job I did in Tech school (security) and have been at it for 5 years now.

But you see, I was what you'd call a "later victim" of the bust. I stood by and watched (and kept my job) while many who worked with me and below me lost their jobs. I literally got my walking papers when the company I worked for basically finally folded.

So, in this case, all of my bad stuff happened under the Bush regime, if thats how you want to put it.

The problem now? I have marketable skills, and in fact have nearly succeeded 3 times in the past 5 years in getting another higher paying job to better myself. The only problem I guess is timing, because when I was about to be hired, all 3 times a sudden hiring freeze imposed by either county, city, or a company working for same caused me to not get the position. So its not that I'm not trying to better myself, its the path I could take to do so is closed right now. Maybe in a few years when a few more people retire I could get my foot in the door.

I think thats one of the main issues right now. Downsizing isn't always by handing layoff slips out. People retire or quit and they aren't replaced. The place my dad used to work used to have 3 5-man crews. A few guys quit, a few retired, my dad went on disability-they now have 1 5-man crew. They expect them to do the same work (obviously they can't) so now they use a computer to prioritize things. Often what happens is basic maintaining of things gets pushed to the bottom, and then suddenly to the top when something breaks because they didn't have the manpower to maintain it.

I think every administration on the whole has brought this all on though. You can point at both sides of the aisle. I understand inflation and the fact that something that cost a buck a few years ago is probably now $2.50 or so, but the way our administration(s) spend money is just amazing. I often wonder why they call the yearly spending allocation a budget-if I budgeted that way, I'd be so far in debt I couldn't see anymore.

Both sides spend money like water on things that most people WITH a budget would refer to as a "splurge" or something similar.

But it all depends on how you look at it. I'm glad to have a job that I'm about to hit the 5 year mark on. I'm not happy that pay increases are basically frozen right now. I'm not happy that even my little economy car costs me $40 every 2 weeks to get to my job. I'm starting to sour on the prices at the grocery store going up.

But heck it could be worse, I could be laid off, on unemployment, wondering how I'm going to pay my bills, etc.

Sure I'm worse off, but I don't blame any one person called President. There are 535 other "representatives" up there in DC who are involved in many of the decisions that have influenced my place (and everyone elses) currently today, and there are a whole bunch up in Sacramento who affect me locally too.

The issue is all of those people need to wake up and realize where we're going and figure out something fast before it gets worse. I don't know how we can do that, but when I hear a guy like McCain using verbage that Bush did like "Stay the course" I start to wonder. Stay THIS course? It would be like the Titanic seeing the iceberg an hour before and the Captain of the ship saying "Stay the course, all ahead full!"

But I guess if they are all making money hand over fist, maybe they really thinking that. Thats what scares me the most-if anyone out there thinks our current situation is good and, in fact, we need it to get WORSE......wow. You must be a glutton for punishment.

Me personally, I've had enough-we can change course anytime now. And since we have to take what the "parties" throw at us for "candidates" I'm going to either have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, or, if none of them is worthy, none of the above. The problem is, 90% of my fellow Americans will vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Thats the only choice we have, really.

And as has happened so many times before, the promises will be forgotten, the spending will continue, and maybe, just maybe, with a little luck, brains will engage and perhaps we'll actually move in a good direction again.

I can hope, can't I?

[NL7W]

Gas Prices previous admin. .75 - $1.40
Gas This Admin 2.00 - $4.00....... and rising

Food prices have doubled in the last eight years

Heating oil 4X increase.

Housing prices blown out of proportion.

The writing is on the wall.

Right now we plan trips to the store and just go once a week. We no longer got out for a cruise and go window shopping for the heck of it. BTW my salary has gone up about 4% each year over the last 8 the spending that money can do in much less. If you froze heating oil prices right now it would cost me $1150 to fill my tank that would last five to six weeks. What ever you say I was living a lot better off the previous admin.

Food prices have NOT doubled...

Heating oil... hard to say. Provide the figures.

Housing prices... depends on the region / locality. My Alaskan home, in the fastest growing region / locality in the state has it's value up a reasonable 20% in the last full 3.5 years -- certainly not the overly inflated and unsustainable 10 to 20% per year values in many highly speculative markets in the lesser-48. Caveat Emptor.

[KB1PLB]

Heating oil... hard to say. Provide the figures.

.

1.05 gal 2000
4.25 gal now

[N2RJ]

Food prices have NOT doubled...

A 10lb bag of basmati rice used to be less than $10, now it's $18, and that's for the store brand, not a premium brand.

Food prices have increased significantly, if not doubled.

Heating oil... hard to say. Provide the figures.

I don't use heating oil here. We use LP gas. Used to be just over $2/gallon when we moved here. Now it's almost $4. Heating oil follows a similar pattern.

Housing prices... depends on the region / locality. My Alaskan home, in the fastest growing region / locality in the state has it's value up a reasonable 20% in the last full 3.5 years -- certainly not the overly inflated and unsustainable 10 to 20% per year values in many highly speculative markets in the lesser-48. Caveat Emptor.

Lower 48 vs Alaska - Alaska is cold and the weather is harsh. While a "rugged alaskan" such as yourself may enjoy it, I enjoy four seasons including a nice hot summer. I would enjoy four seasons with mild winters even better.

Demand and supply. I don't think I know anyone who has said, "hey, I'm gonna build my dream home in Alaska, you know, paradise." Most of the people I know who moved to Alaska had to do so because of employment opportunities in the energy and research fields or supporting industries.

[K7JEM]

While a "rugged alaskan" such as yourself may enjoy it, I enjoy four seasons including a nice hot summer.

You need to move to Phoenix if you like a nice, hot, summer. But they don't have 4 seasons.

I remember the day it hit 122 degrees in PHX. I was heading home from work and heard on the news that it was the hottest day in recorded history. I turned off the A/C and rolled down the windows.

Didn't really feel any hotter than 116, don't know what the big fuss was.

Joe

[W5JO]

Indeed. That is the point I have tried to get across. It was not a bubble at all, but rather the peaking before the Bush disaster.

The fact here doesn't wash. The economy was in very good condition until after 2006 when the political winds blew. It has been downhill since. Me I blame the congress not Bush, he can't do anything by himself.

Are you stating that if Gore had been elected then the dot com extravaganza would have continued?

[W1GUH]

Well..in the nineties life was much better. People were out having fun and partying, the country was at peace, the economy was OK. Well, it was the height of the dot-com bubble, but still, it was really an "era of good feeling."

Much, much much better than what we have now.

[W1GUH]

The fact here doesn't wash. The economy was in very good condition until after 2006 when the political winds blew. It has been downhill since. Me I blame the congress not Bush, he can't do anything by himself.

Are you stating that if Gore had been elected then the dot com extravaganza would have continued?

Of course you don't blame the FM. You're in love with him.

[W5JO]

Of course you don't blame the FM. You're in love with him.


I don't love him, he is a fool. But, for sure, I don't love the pathological lies Gore told, and the politics of fear which the democrat party operatives perpetuate.

[N5NPO]

Was Monica better off UNDER a democrat administration?

[K0RGR]

Bill Clinton did one absolutely brilliant thing, and he did it before he was even sworn in to office.

The week he was elected, he met with the Chairman of the Fed. He must have promised to perform all sorts of perverted acts on him, because for the next 8 years, the Fed was the President's best friend. Either that, or he had photos of someone else providing perverted acts to the Chairman.

I don't give Clinton credit for the good economy in his time in office, but he did not do anything to destroy the economy.

I do give Bush almost full blame for the first recession in his term - the economy was wobbling, and he kicked it off the cliff with his defense of OPEC's right to charge whatever they want. The current recession is also a result of Republican deregulation in the financial markets, but I'm not sure Bush is to blame - it's more Congress, but there are many Democrats on record supporting those changes, too. The long-term impact of wild inflation in energy prices is yet to be seen, but that's not Bush's fault - but neither has he done much of anything to help the situation.

We first started seeing the erosion of the American middle class under Nixon's Wage/Price controls that always managed to keep wages down much better than prices. However, things really started rolling downhill fast under Carter. There again, I think the actions of the Fed even before Carter took office had more to do with the 'stagflation' of that era than anything Carter did. Right now, the rate of erosion of the middle class is quite high. The mortgage default statistics are horrifying! And yes, we're borrowing about $1 Billion a day from China.

The bottom line is that we're in a recession and the future is not looking too good. We have runaway energy prices, food prices, and health care costs, it looks like everything else is climibing in price, except the value of my biggest investment - my house - which is rapidly declining in value. It looks just like the Carter administration, except that under Carter, the value of houses went up by a factor of 10.

[N2RJ]

You need to move to Phoenix if you like a nice, hot, summer. But they don't have 4 seasons.

I remember the day it hit 122 degrees in PHX. I was heading home from work and heard on the news that it was the hottest day in recorded history. I turned off the A/C and rolled down the windows.

Didn't really feel any hotter than 116, don't know what the big fuss was.

Joe

I went to the Grand Canyon in 2006 in July. It was pretty hot, and I actually liked the desert climate.

Unfortunately the XYL wants to stay in the NYC area, so I can't move.

For retirement we'd love to move somewhere far away from here though. Somewhere where we can put up a huge contest station away from man made interference.

[KB1QBZ]

>>The economy was in very good condition until after 2006 when the political winds blew. It has been downhill since. Me I blame the congress not Bush, he can't do anything by himself.

"The economy was in good condition until after 2006" -- only if you consider someone who has 95% artery blockage being in good health (at least until the heart attack actually hits).

Some basic numbers from various Federal government sources, plus a few from the Wall Street Journal (not what you'd call a liberal rag):

1. In 2005, the bottom 2/5ths of the wage earners in this country had lower real after-tax income than they had in Jan 2001. In 2005, the next 2/5th essentially broke even versus 2001. In 2005, the top 1/5th were up in double digits versus 2001. That's not very good, and the preliminary numbers for 2006 and 2007 are really ugly (source: Congressional Budget Office)

For comparison, 5/5ths of wage earners saw real after-tax increases in income during the Clinton administration.

2. In the period 2002 thru end of 2007, over 100% of the revenue increases and over 100% of the profit increases of 28 of the DJIA 30 components was due to sales outside the U.S. to customers outside the U.S. of products/services that were sourced/manufactured/delivered outside the U.S. In other words, those improvements did nothing to help the U.S. economy even though they resulted in substantial gains in the stock prices of those companies. Those numbers are consistent with the Fortune 500 in general. (source: Wall Street Journal)

3. During the period 2001-2007, the components of the GDP computation that increased were (1) increase in national debt, and (2) increase in personal debt. Those components of GDP that actually refer to increases in manufacturing/service output were down during the period. source (Fed Reserve)

4. At a time when the US economy is 80% consumer driven, US personal debt is at historic highs both on a per capita basis and as a percent of income. Home equity is at an all-time low, and the savings rate is negative. In other words, the economy of the last few years was fueled by individuals going into debt (and by the country going much much further into debt). But the consumer is now tapped out -- they don't have any credit left on their credit cards, they don't have any savings to draw on, they can't qualify for unsecured loans, and they no longer have equity in their homes to tap. (source: Fed Reserve)

Think of it as the ruddy good complexion often shown by someone with a high fever.

5. During the period 2001-2007, the top 500 corporate recipients of the bush tax cuts collectively moved between 750,000 and 1,000,000 high-paying/good-benefit jobs out of the US to other countries. Those jobs were replaced with low-paying/low-benefit jobs in industries such as hospitality and retail (not the kinds of things that build national wealth). (sources: Fed Reserve, Congressional Budget Office, Dept of Labor, Wall St. Journal)

6. The increase in gasoline prices for strong currency nations (e.g., the Euro) has been less than half of the increases for the US. This indicates that at least 50% of the cost of the increase in gas has been the decline in the US dollar, which is a direct result of the 80+% increase in US national debt under bush.

[W5JO]

[QUOTE=KB1QBZ;1245028"The economy was in good condition until after 2006" -- only if you consider someone who has 95% artery blockage being in good health (at least until the heart attack actually hits).

Some basic numbers from various Federal government sources, plus a few from the Wall Street Journal (not what you'd call a liberal rag):

1. In 2005, the bottom 2/5ths of the wage earners in this country had lower real after-tax income than they had in Jan 2001. In 2005, the next 2/5th essentially broke even versus 2001. In 2005, the top 1/5th were up in double digits versus 2001. That's not very good, and the preliminary numbers for 2006 and 2007 are really ugly (source: Congressional Budget Office)

For comparison, 5/5ths of wage earners saw real after-tax increases in income during the Clinton administration.

2. In the period 2002 thru end of 2007, over 100% of the revenue increases and over 100% of the profit increases of 28 of the DJIA 30 components was due to sales outside the U.S. to customers outside the U.S. of products/services that were sourced/manufactured/delivered outside the U.S. In other words, those improvements did nothing to help the U.S. economy even though they resulted in substantial gains in the stock prices of those companies. Those numbers are consistent with the Fortune 500 in general. (source: Wall Street Journal)

3. During the period 2001-2007, the components of the GDP computation that increased were (1) increase in national debt, and (2) increase in personal debt. Those components of GDP that actually refer to increases in manufacturing/service output were down during the period. source (Fed Reserve)

4. At a time when the US economy is 80% consumer driven, US personal debt is at historic highs both on a per capita basis and as a percent of income. Home equity is at an all-time low, and the savings rate is negative. In other words, the economy of the last few years was fueled by individuals going into debt (and by the country going much much further into debt). But the consumer is now tapped out -- they don't have any credit left on their credit cards, they don't have any savings to draw on, they can't qualify for unsecured loans, and they no longer have equity in their homes to tap. (source: Fed Reserve)

Think of it as the ruddy good complexion often shown by someone with a high fever.

5. During the period 2001-2007, the top 500 corporate recipients of the bush tax cuts collectively moved between 750,000 and 1,000,000 high-paying/good-benefit jobs out of the US to other countries. Those jobs were replaced with low-paying/low-benefit jobs in industries such as hospitality and retail (not the kinds of things that build national wealth). (sources: Fed Reserve, Congressional Budget Office, Dept of Labor, Wall St. Journal)

6. The increase in gasoline prices for strong currency nations (e.g., the Euro) has been less than half of the increases for the US. This indicates that at least 50% of the cost of the increase in gas has been the decline in the US dollar, which is a direct result of the 80+% increase in US national debt under bush.[/QUOTE]





What are you trying to do, confuse the issue with facts. At least you didn't ask for links. But I really doubt the CBO as I do many government agencies.

[W1GUH]

About the economic woes during Jimmy Carter's administration:

Inflation was rampant as least since Richard Nixon's days. It was in 1971 that he instituted his infamous "Wage and Price freeze" as a response to inflation. It was also during his time that the oil barons started hating us and started jacking up the price of oil and creating grotesque oil shortages. Carter inherited a stinking mess when he took office.

The interesting phenomena about this is that "political time" seems to have started at the Jimmy/imbecile ronnie juncture for whole generations. ronnie didn't fix the problems (whenever they originated), he only swept them under the rug and started down the "primose path" that has brought us to the present with its much worse woes. But he, (well, his handlers, really) had a heckuva public relations team that has made all sorts of propaganda the "truth" for whole generations. This Carter bashing is part of that.

[N4VGB]

This Carter bashing is part of that.


No real complaint from me on Carter. He made me plenty of money. High interest rates feed a porfolio as well or better than good stock dividends. Jimmy worked from a single plan, there's a problem, throw money at it. He would have made an outstanding/typical Rep or Senator and would have lasted there many years. His plan didn't work well in GA or from the White House. Pretty simple to throw the taxpayers dollars around, all of them in D.C. are very good at it.

[W1GUH]

No real complaint from me on Carter. He made me plenty of money. High interest rates feed a porfolio as well or better than good stock dividends. Jimmy worked from a single plan, there's a problem, throw money at it. He would have made an outstanding/typical Rep or Senator and would have lasted there many years. His plan didn't work well in GA or from the White House. Pretty simple to throw the taxpayers dollars around, all of them in D.C. are very good at it.

Seems the choice has become which money is thrown around, borrowed money or collected taxes. Of course the borrowed path is attractive for the present, at least til we're all speaking Chinese.

[N0WVA]

1.05 gal 2000
4.25 gal now


I remember paying 59 cents a a gallon for propane in 95. Its like $3.00 now.

[N0WVA]

Food prices have NOT doubled...

Heating oil... hard to say. Provide the figures.

Housing prices... depends on the region / locality. My Alaskan home, in the fastest growing region / locality in the state has it's value up a reasonable 20% in the last full 3.5 years -- certainly not the overly inflated and unsustainable 10 to 20% per year values in many highly speculative markets in the lesser-48. Caveat Emptor.

Food prices, specifically staples, have doubled. Flour, eggs, citrus is twice as high now than ten years ago. MIlk has not quite doubled, but Im sure in a year it will be there.

Your only seeing the start of trouble. Prices are fixing to go through the roof.

[N0WVA]

Im in better shape as far as assets than I was 10 years ago, however, I think the normal progression of life has a lot to say for that, and the fact thay Ive been keeping my nose to the grindstone.

I definately dont have more free time now than I had ten years ago.

I have noticed that health insurance rates have been jumping up considerable amounts each year. Soon it will be out of reach.

Americans will have unaffordable healthcare, low paying jobs, and reduced to living in shacks made of pallets and cardboard, just like across the border.

Its already looking like China around here, what with all the scooters running all over town.

[ka5s]

Which one?

Kennedy? Running around Fort Riley in the Winter, and waiting on boxcars to invade Cuba? Surely you jest.
LBJ? Vietnam smells funny even when we're WINNING.
Carter? Never mind double digit interest rates, he wanted to cut my pension halfway through my career.

And you know what? I got out in '83 and my standard of LIVING hasn't gone up since '87, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Bush II hasn't helped me either.

Cortland
KA5S

[NL7W]

Which one?

Kennedy? Running around Fort Riley in the Winter, and waiting on boxcars to invade Cuba? Surely you jest.
LBJ? Vietnam smells funny even when we're WINNING.
Carter? Never mind double digit interest rates, he wanted to cut my pension halfway through my career.

And you know what? I got out in '83 and my standard of LIVING hasn't gone up since '87, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Bush II hasn't helped me either.

Cortland
KA5S

Sounds like you're retired military, like me. I've only been retired less than two years, and from the Air Guard, so any effects don't show here, and not for many, many years.

I hear you... Even though I have done well under GW's two terms, that doesn't mean everyone has. And generally, I'd agree with the jist of your broad statement: that everyone has invariably suffered under administrations going back for decades. Thanks for the post.

Those that think Big Government is the answer, surely doesn't know our history. I feel sad for those who are bloated, dazed, and drunk on unearned entitlements and belief in the "Government knows better, We'll take care of you -- cradle to grave" mentality.

[kg6amw]

Most on the right will say that Dems will raise your taxes. Probably true. And, as such, Conservatives will always look for ways to cut taxes.

But what would you rather have? Low taxes, but a weak dollar, weak personal income, corporate corruption, unstable markets, high inflation?

More simply put, how about stagnant wages and lack of gains in your stock portfolio, but you have less taken out of your check?

I seem to remember having more buying power in the 1990s. Interest rates were decent, I paid more in taxes, but my income grew and so did my investments. We also had a couple years of budget surpluses at the federal level.

I think I'd rather have a higher tax bracket as long as my net-net would better, and I could count on growth.

Quote from an American Thinker article that best describes the Democrat party today. --- The Democratic Party has devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually pissed-off. It is a sanctuary where solipsistic malcontents and their disjointed causes find refuge and support. It is now the political province of the intellectually deceased, where frightened, lock-step ideologues and other small men and women concoct and promote divisive, destructive, weird and cowardly policies developed within a not-so-quaint, quasi-Marxist stricture of gender, class and race.

[k0ews]

Food prices, specifically staples, have doubled. Flour, eggs, citrus is twice as high now than ten years ago. MIlk has not quite doubled, but Im sure in a year it will be there.

Your only seeing the start of trouble. Prices are fixing to go through the roof.

If we don't start getting any better weather around these parts (Iowa) you ain't seen nothing yet! Most of what you pay for at the grocer is your food's food. Commodities are already high, and we're in the middle of some of the worst flooding in recent memory in these parts. The corn crop here is a month late getting in. That means lower yields. That means less corn, and with supplies already tight, prices will go up. That means more expensive meat, milk, eggs, etc.
I don't like where any of this is heading right now. Am I better off than other administrations? On the whole, about the same. I don't give the President that much credit. It has much more to do with who I elect to the statehouse and such than it does to who I elect President.

[KD5ZPG]

As we march toward socialism............why can't we learn from history...........why must we recreate the wheel.

DEMS = SOCIALISM!!!

SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK!!!

[KA3TGV]

Most on the right will say that Dems will raise your taxes. Probably true. And, as such, Conservatives will always look for ways to cut taxes.

But what would you rather have? Low taxes, but a weak dollar, weak personal income, corporate corruption, unstable markets, high inflation?

More simply put, how about stagnant wages and lack of gains in your stock portfolio, but you have less taken out of your check?

I seem to remember having more buying power in the 1990s. Interest rates were decent, I paid more in taxes, but my income grew and so did my investments. We also had a couple years of budget surpluses at the federal level.

I think I'd rather have a higher tax bracket as long as my net-net would better, and I could count on growth.

It's a false choice between a couple of losing propositions.

We've been letting our manufacturing & materials industries go for 50 years. Without wealth creation we are increasingly left with a service economy that shifts wealth around. Sound familiar?

Forget about the 1990's. True, we had a couple of years of budgetary operating surplus but not much headway was made on paying down the long-term debt. We were left with little of lasting value, just a big bubble in tech stock prices, which subsequently shifted to housing and is now inflating the price of crude oil futures. I suspect low margin buying requirements coupled with electronic securities trading fuel unreasonable & unhealthy speculation. Some speculation is needed & desirable but is inherently unstable as an economic pillar. Wealth is not to be confused with 'wealth effect'.

The clowns on Wall Street & at the Federal Reserve run the show. Interest rates must stay low to keep the crap game afloat. We have a Federal Reserve that now bails out failed investment banks. Forestalling the inevitable makes the day of reckoning worse. Someone needs their fanny paddled.

[KB1QBZ]

Heck, give me another Clinton market run-up and crash. Yep-sure...

You mean like the current hollow stock market crash????

[k2jnc]

As we march toward socialism............why can't we learn from history...........why must we recreate the wheel.

DEMS = SOCIALISM!!!

SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK!!!

Do you think that if you use a larger font, it will make your point more valid or believable?

If so... it does not.

Just a little help for you. Have a nice day.

[ka5s]

Without wealth creation we are increasingly left with a service economy that shifts wealth around. Sound familiar?

Like going a flea market where all we do is sell to each other.

Self correcting, of course, but there's some pain involved.

TANSTAAFL.


Cortland
KA5S

[NL7W]

You mean like the current hollow stock market crash????

What crash? The market peaked, hovering around 14K for a short period of time in October of last year. Since then, it has settled back to a respectable 12 to 13K area. Five years ago, the market was at 9K, and has STEADILY, not precipitously, climbed since that point in time (five years ago). Today, a slight market correction, due to many of the economic variables, has occured.

Reference: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=5y;indic ator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues =0;logscale=on;source=undefined

Your alarmist and faulty "crash" definition astounds me and so many. The sky isn't falling.

Next Please...


Toodles.

[NL7W]

As we march toward socialism............why can't we learn from history...........why must we recreate the wheel.

DEMS = SOCIALISM!!!

SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK!!!

So right you are.

[KG6JTB]

Quote from an American Thinker article that best describes the Democrat party today. --- The Democratic Party has devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually pissed-off. It is a sanctuary where solipsistic malcontents and their disjointed causes find refuge and support. It is now the political province of the intellectually deceased, where frightened, lock-step ideologues and other small men and women concoct and promote divisive, destructive, weird and cowardly policies developed within a not-so-quaint, quasi-Marxist stricture of gender, class and race.

Please don't quote that right-wing garbage to me.

[KG6JTB]

[QUOTE=NL7W;1247289]So right you are.[/QUOTE

Republicans = war mongering fools. Now does that make sense?

All the good debaters on this board have vacated. Reading these posts is like watching Fox News. I feel stupider that I have been here.

Dave
KG6JTB

[NL7W]

[QUOTE=NL7W;1247289]So right you are.[/QUOTE

Republicans = war mongering fools. Now does that make sense?

All the good debaters on this board have vacated. Reading these posts is like watching Fox News. I feel stupider that I have been here.

Dave
KG6JTB

Good for you. Now that you feel compelled to leave, why don't you do so.


Republicans = safety and security, by the way. There must be a reason why haven't sustained another numbing terrorist attack since 9/11/01.


Toodles.

[NL7W]

It's a false choice between a couple of losing propositions.

We've been letting our manufacturing & materials industries go for 50 years. Without wealth creation we are increasingly left with a service economy that shifts wealth around. Sound familiar?

Forget about the 1990's. True, we had a couple of years of budgetary operating surplus but not much headway was made on paying down the long-term debt. We were left with little of lasting value, just a big bubble in tech stock prices, which subsequently shifted to housing and is now inflating the price of crude oil futures. I suspect low margin buying requirements coupled with electronic securities trading fuel unreasonable & unhealthy speculation. Some speculation is needed & desirable but is inherently unstable as an economic pillar. Wealth is not to be confused with 'wealth effect'.

The clowns on Wall Street & at the Federal Reserve run the show. Interest rates must stay low to keep the crap game afloat. We have a Federal Reserve that now bails out failed investment banks. Forestalling the inevitable makes the day of reckoning worse. Someone needs their fanny paddled.

So right you are, too.

Increased local oil & gas exploration, drilling, and production, or tangible wealth production of our Nation's real natural resources, is exactly what we need right now. With such an effort, high paying, stable jobs and careers will result. Hard earned money, investments, and profit will stay right here in America, driving our economy, instead of propping up foreign nations who really hate us, but like raping our wealth.

Increasingly, America's wealth and technological prowess is being raped by foreign nations. Our money and prowess are exiting our Nation at an alarming rate.

Today's example:

U.S. government networks, and the computer systems of U.S. and Western European companies, are under broad and systemic Chinese hacking campaign; in the case of private Western companies, China steals industrial secrets and patent information in order to hasten its rise to a position of global economic hegemony; in the case of U.S. critical infrastructure -- for example, control of electric power stations, several of which Chinese hackers have managed to disable -- China may be preparing for more sinister contingencies. :mad:

...and this is nothing new -- it's been going on for quite awhile.

Ref: http://hsdailywire.com/single.php?id=6242

[KD5ZPG]

We are the greatest nation on earth because of the energy we were able to supply to fuel our industrial age.

We didn't get were we are today by being "green" and I am not particularly inclined to sacrifice my way of life to become that way.

Energy cost more because of competition for limited resources.........hello, thank you Asia. We can't limit how much of the pie other nations consume but we can control how big the pie is by adding to it. More supply.......lower prices.

It makes no since to hammer on "energy industry greed" cause

a)your biting the hand that is feeding you
b)they don't set prices...........Wall Street and other global markets dictate what the days price is going to be based on supply and demand.
c) If our oil industry wanted to jack up prices they would limit production(think OPEC right now). To the contrary............they are wanting to drill for more oil.
d) 85% of Americans that have 401k's, mutual funds etc are invested in the energy industry in one form or another. We the American people are stock holders in this industry and have a stake in the very thing that so many dispise.
e) The domestic oil industry supplies tens of thousands of jobs..........just like the one you go to every day.

As for drilling and exploration does anyone have an idea what it cost to bring one well in. Well I can tell you...............its about a 1 million per copy in the permian basin.

Look at this aeriel view...........all the white dots are wells. Think about each one taking at least 3 months to bring in at a cost of a million dollars each. It cost big bucks to supply what we all are so accustom to taking for granted.

[N1LAF]

The majority of people flourished under the Clinton admin.. the republicans would have you believe it was because of the repub congress.. but once they gained control of the Pres AND congress, the borrow and spend crowd took over... How long can the country continue to borrow from China??? All polling data shows that most people are not doing better.. It is time for a change and Obama will make the change happen...

Obama has no clue to whats going on.

Look at the GDP numbers: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353
The GDP started to take off when the Republicans started to implement The Contract with America. The Republicans took control of the congress. And the Republican congress balanced the budget during the Clinton Administration.

Historical and numerical fact.

[NF9L]

You know, I feel sorry for Bush. He has the drive to go after the radical Islam issue and no matter what people say, he hangs in there. All politicians are more concerned about their own job than what’s best. Bush is just doing what he thinks is right. The economy has been good until recently. The President cannot be blamed for these issues, there are ups and downs that happen in spite of who’s in charge. But, since it’s an election year everyone is blaming him. I dread the future if the Dems have 60 Senators after this November. But, then the blame can really go to the majority after the taxes go up, and think how many more Corps will leave when Capital Gains taxes go up. Right now we have the second highest Corporate tax rate in the world. How much more can we take?

There should be one good result to these gas prices. The Democrats will be forced to stop blocking all the attempts to use our own resources. I just hope the American people wake-up to this and the Republicans use this as a platform . . . perfect timing.

Jerry - KC

[N0WVA]

We are the greatest nation on earth because of the energy we were able to supply to fuel our industrial age.

We didn't get were we are today by being "green" and I am not particularly inclined to sacrifice my way of life to become that way.

Energy cost more because of competition for limited resources.........hello, thank you Asia. We can't limit how much of the pie other nations consume but we can control how big the pie is by adding to it. More supply.......lower prices.

It makes no since to hammer on "energy industry greed" cause

a)your biting the hand that is feeding you
b)they don't set prices...........Wall Street and other global markets dictate what the days price is going to be based on supply and demand.
c) If our oil industry wanted to jack up prices they would limit production(think OPEC right now). To the contrary............they are wanting to drill for more oil.
d) 85% of Americans that have 401k's, mutual funds etc are invested in the energy industry in one form or another. We the American people are stock holders in this industry and have a stake in the very thing that so many dispise.
e) The domestic oil industry supplies tens of thousands of jobs..........just like the one you go to every day.

As for drilling and exploration does anyone have an idea what it cost to bring one well in. Well I can tell you...............its about a 1 million per copy in the permian basin.

Look at this aeriel view...........all the white dots are wells. Think about each one taking at least 3 months to bring in at a cost of a million dollars each. It cost big bucks to supply what we all are so accustom to taking for granted.


The US consumes 400 million gallons of gas per day. Thats 400,000,000. A big number. Not to mention diesel, which is probably equal amount or more.

What do you think the profit per gallon is for the oil companies? Then just multiply that times our consumption.

Those are big numbers,too. One day profits would probably pay for all the oil wells combined.

[NL7W]

The US consumes 400 million gallons of gas per day. Thats 400,000,000. A big number. Not to mention diesel, which is probably equal amount or more.

What do you think the profit per gallon is for the oil companies? Then just multiply that times our consumption.

Those are big numbers,too. One day profits would probably pay for all the oil wells combined.

Oil companies make 8 to 10 cents per dollar. Microsoft makes 30 to 40 cents on the same dollar.

Oil companies typically reinvest large amounts of their profits in research and exploration. They're doing that now, when profits and capital are incoming and available.

If it were not for the sheer volume and large potential profit involved on occasion (like now versus the late nineties when the price per barrel was below $10.00 and no profit was made), just why the heck would they continue to carry on such challenging endeavor -- extracting and producing fossil fuels and other petroleum products? Profit and wealth make this world go 'round.

Go figure...

[KB1QBZ]

Look at the GDP numbers: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353

Have you looked at the GDP numbers?

I mean really looked at them?

There are essentially five factors that go into GDP

Consumption
Gross Investment
Government Spending
Exports
Imports

Since bush took office:

1. Consumption is up, way up -- but all fueled by debt. According to bush himself, this is an 80% consumer driven economy. Do you remember his Christmas message in 2007 -- be a good American and go out and spend, spend, spend.

With consumers totally tapped out (no equity in their homes, no savings, downsizing because of the loss of good jobs overseas), where is the consumption going to come from??

2. Gross Investment is down. The 500 largest corporate recipients of the bush tax cuts thanked the country by reducing capital investment in the U.S. by a couple of $100 billion. All while they moved about 1,000,000 good paying/high benefits jobs to Asia.

3. Government Spending: Waaaaay up. All backed by government DEBT. The U.S. national debt is up by over 80% since bush took office, and now stands at about $9,200,000,000,000 ($9.2 trillion dollars). THAT is the single biggest component of GDP increase over the past seven years.

4. Exports: Even with the recent decline in the dollar, exports have been declining.

5. Imports: Up big time, especially because of the increase in the price of gas -- a direct result of bush nearly doubling our national debt.


During the Clinton administration, we had vast expansion in the economy due to new business and new industry, not due to vast increases in public and private debt.

[KB1QBZ]

[quote=KG6JTB;1247306]Republicans = safety and security, by the way. There must be a reason why haven't sustained another numbing terrorist attack since 9/11/01.

But we have sustained a number of massive terrorist attacks since 9/11/01

1. An 80% increase in our national debt to $9.2 trillion, with most of that being funded by our good friends the Chinese and the Saudis (and other Gulf oil states)

2. More than doubling the price of gasoline to the American public, causing massive financial dislocation

3. Massive loss of good paying/high benefit jobs

4. Financial WMD (e.g., subprime loans) that has caused massive layoffs and loss of wealth

5. Massive loss in American prestige around the world, with world leaders who support us being voted out of office

6. Massive loss of trust in America, with a recent State Dept-sponsored poll showing that about 75% of the world thinks we're more dangerous than Al-Qaeda

7. A resurgence in Russian power and influence, not to mention continued increases in Chinese and Arab ownership of worldwide resources and capital assets

And all while Al-Qaeda was able to re-arm and re-finance itself, grow, and expand its influence in key oil producing regions (source: National Intelligence Estimate).


Now let's go back to Bin Laden's stated goals:

1. Isolate America from its energy supplies. Check

2. Damage the American economy. Check

3. Isolate America from its allies. Check

So please tell us, why would Al-Qaeda want to attack again? What would they accomplish by attacking?


george w. bush and the repuglicans -- Al-Qaeda's most valuable allies: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and looking good for 2008.

[NL7W]

[quote=NL7W;1247349]

But we have sustained a number of massive terrorist attacks since 9/11/01

1. An 80% increase in our national debt to $9.2 trillion, with most of that being funded by our good friends the Chinese and the Saudis (and other Gulf oil states)

2. More than doubling the price of gasoline to the American public, causing massive financial dislocation

3. Massive loss of good paying/high benefit jobs

4. Financial WMD (e.g., subprime loans) that has caused massive layoffs and loss of wealth

5. Massive loss in American prestige around the world, with world leaders who support us being voted out of office

6. Massive loss of trust in America, with a recent State Dept-sponsored poll showing that about 75% of the world thinks we're more dangerous than Al-Qaeda

7. A resurgence in Russian power and influence, not to mention continued increases in Chinese and Arab ownership of worldwide resources and capital assets

And all while Al-Qaeda was able to re-arm and re-finance itself, grow, and expand its influence in key oil producing regions (source: National Intelligence Estimate).


Now let's go back to Bin Laden's stated goals:

1. Isolate America from its energy supplies. Check

2. Damage the American economy. Check

3. Isolate America from its allies. Check

So please tell us, why would Al-Qaeda want to attack again? What would they accomplish by attacking?


george w. bush and the repuglicans -- Al-Qaeda's most valuable allies: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and looking good for 2008.

Where do you get this? It isn't out of thin aire... you've been duped.

[KB1QBZ]

We are the greatest nation on earth because of the energy we were able to supply to fuel our industrial age.

Yes and no. Because of the LOW COST energy we were able to supply. First hydro power (the rivers of New England, for example). Then coal. Then petroleum.

But the days of cheap petroleum are over. For two reasons:

1. They're over because world-wide demand is approaching world-wide supply. No amount of drilling in the U.S. is going to change that. The U.S. Dept of Energy, for example, estimates that all the drilling you could possibly do in the U.S. would only decrease the price of gasoline by about $0.25 (yes, that's twenty five cents) a gallon.

2. We as a nation are a profligate consumers. Close to half our gasoline goes towards private use for cars and overheated, too-large homes. An increase in auto fuel efficiency of 25% (easily doable) over the past 10 years would have saved more fuel than is could have been extracted from ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico.

Surely you're not going to claim that driving big hulking gas guzzlers is what made this country economically strong??!!

We didn't get were we are today by being "green"

No, we didn't. Of course, we killed a million or so people with polluted air and polluted water, but what the hell. As long as your kids don't have to live near big power generators or manufacturing plants, why should you care if someone else's kids get sick and die.

and I am not particularly inclined to sacrifice my way of life to become that way.

Ahhh, a true patriot. America needs people to rethink their use of energy, and KD5ZPG's response is:

"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask rather what your country can do for you"

Energy cost more because of competition for limited resources.........hello, thank you Asia. We can't limit how much of the pie other nations consume but we can control how big the pie is by adding to it. More supply.......lower prices.

Yep, all of $0.25/gallon. Wow. That means that the gas station down the street will be selling gas for $4.24/gallon instead of $4.49/gallon. Oh, well that solves my problem.

Funny how so many large companies are going green -- not just in their advertising, but in actual fact. Things like designing new plants and offices to use dramatically less energy. Things like building new facilities to use "greener" energy sources. And note, we're not just talking in the U.S., we're talking about their plants no matter where.

But please, drive your Hummer (maybe you should upgrade to an H2). After all, it's all about you.

It makes no since to hammer on "energy industry greed"

That, at least, is mostly correct. As any economist will tell you, the sources of the current spike in petroleum costs are

1. The decline in the U.S. dollar, a direct result of george w. bush's 80% increase in the National Debt

2. Speculation, a direct result of non-public, non-regulated energy markets created by the Republicans and protected by george w. bush. Note that the single biggest winner in petroleum speculation is Goldman Sachs -- and that george w. bush's Treasury Secy is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

3. Uncertainty over future oil supplies. It's not clear that the Gulf States (including Saudi Arabia) can pump more oil. Russia and the 'stans are not producing as much oil as was expected by now. Mexico's oil fields are falling apart. U.S. and Canadian "tar sands" are proving tougher and more expensive than originally thought (note: not because of "green" anything, but because it's damned expensive to extract petroleum from tar sands).

4. Increased Al-Qaeda infiltration of muslim oil field workers (and other radical muslim groups). Much of which is the direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and our continued occupation.

5. Lack of refinery capacity. Funny how the U.S. oil industry reduced refinery capacity in the U.S. over the past 25 years -- especially since they were closing profitable plants that were already in place. It's one thing to say that no new refineries have been built, but why were profitable refineries shuttered?

And before you say "no new refineries, ecofreaks, yada yada yada" -- please explain the ads being run by Marathon Oil about their $3 billion of refinery expansion in Louisiana over the past three years.

[KB1QBZ]

Actually, contrary to what your response shows, I was the original poster of this material.

[quote=KB1QBZ;1247558]

Where do you get this? It isn't out of thin aire... you've been duped.

1. 80% increase in U.S. national debt under george w. bush. source: U.S. Dept of the Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt

You'll find that a full 78% of the national debt was run up under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Bush II is responsible for something like 38% of our national debt.

2. More than doubling the price of gasoline to the American public.

According to the U.S. Energy Dept, the price of gasoline in the U.S. was around $2/gallon (often under) when bush took office.

In case you haven't noticed, it's now $4/gallon.

In case you haven't noticed, it's causing some pretty severe economic disruption -- and will cause even more when people see their heating bills this winter.

3. Massive loss of good paying/high benefit jobs

According to the U.S. Dept of Labor, somewhere between 750,000 and 1,000,000 good paying/high benefit jobs have been moved out of the U.S. since bush took office.

Those jobs were replaced by low paying/low benefits jobs in home construction (ooops, that's gone), retail, and hospitality. source: U.S. Dept of Labor.

While it's true that outsourcing was underway long before bush took office, the numbers from the Labor Dept show that the rate of outsourcing increased dramatically during the bush administration.

Now quick -- tell me one thing he's done to try to reduce the flow of jobs out of the U.S.

By the way, in general, the more a company benefited from the bush tax giveaways, the more jobs they eliminated here in the U.S. (my analysis)

4. Financial WMD (e.g., subprime loans) that has caused massive layoffs and loss of wealth.

Been too busy chasing DX or something? Heard anything about the subprime mortgage crisis? Or the meltdown of the credit markets. Or GE laying off 4,000 people simply because they couldn't close a bunch of financial deal due lack of available capital in the capital markets? Or Countrywide laying off. Or Citibank. Or Merrill. Or ...

The subprime mess and the problems in the credit markets are the direct result of financial and commodity market deregulation pushed through by the Republicans in Congress during the latter half of the Clinton administration and first half of bush's administration. source: USA Today, Wall Street Journal, NY Times. Please note that you have a conservative paper (WSJ), a middle-of-the-road newspaper (USAT), and a "liberal" newspaper (NYT) all agreeing.

5. Massive loss in American prestige around the world, with world leaders who support us being voted out of office.

Source: Wall Street Journal. Other than Tony Blair in the UK, pretty much every leader of every government that sent troops to Iraq has now been voted out of office (Blair, of course, got out ahead of the mob).

6. Massive loss of trust in America, with a recent State Dept-sponsored poll showing that about 75% of the world thinks we're more dangerous than Al-Qaeda.

What more is there to say? It was even reported on the State Dept's web site until they took it down. Coverage of that poll has appeared in such diverse publications as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Financial Times, and Atlantic Monthly.

7. A resurgence in Russian power and influence, not to mention continued increases in Chinese and Arab ownership of worldwide resources and capital assets

Just this weekend, Russia's President gave a speech blaming the U.S. for the current economic crisis and suggesting that the ruble be added as a world reserve currency because the Russian economy is strong and in the black. The Gulf oil states have dramatically expanded their alliances and treaties with Russia, as has western Europe (source: U.S. State Dept).

The Russians are currently expanding their alliances with both Iraq and Iran (source: Wall St. Journal)

Last year, we were so far in debt that, in effect, the Chinese funded the Pentagon (or you can think of it as the Saudis having funded the Pentagon). Either way, without those two countries buying our debt, we would not have been able to pay our troops or buy all our military playtoys. Nor buy basics like bullets and jet fuel.

As for Chinese and Arab ownership, do a web search on "sovereign funds" and find out just how much and what the Chinese and the Gulf oil states have been buying up around the world (including in the U.S.).

*****
And all while Al-Qaeda was able to re-arm and re-finance itself, grow, and expand its influence in key oil producing regions (source: National Intelligence Estimate).

Sorry, THREE separate National Intelligence Estimates have come to that conclusion. Not just one.

*****

Now let's go back to Bin Laden's stated goals:

1. Isolate America from its energy supplies. Check

2. Damage the American economy. Check

3. Isolate America from its allies. Check

From his video of December 13, 2001.

-------------------

Out of thin air. I don't think so.

Duped -- absolutely. By george w. bush.

[KD5ZPG]

Now let me get this straight.............

The projected output of ANWR would be 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day but Democrats claim that amount is not enough to help lower gas prices, YET, these same Democrats pass a bill to stop putting 75,000 barrels a day into the Strategic Oil Reserve so that it will lower gas prices and curb market speculation.........again.........more fuzzy math.

The typical Algore(elitist !@#$)............do as I say.........not as I do!!! This is coming from the very party that has opposed any new nuclear power plants being built and you want to cry because we are using coal and natural gas.

And.......oh lookie there.......we MIGHT get a new refinery.

As midnight approached, they popped the champagne corks, celebrating a hard-fought victory that keeps alive the county's chances of landing the nation's first all-new oil refinery in 32 years.

Sioux City Journal: Union County approves zoning ordinance for Hyperion (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/06/04/news/top/4e608d46402d5adb8625745e00110beb.txt)

[KB1QBZ]

Now let me get this straight.............

The projected output of ANWR would be 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day but Democrats claim that amount is not enough to help lower gas prices, YET, these same Democrats pass a bill to stop putting 75,000 barrels a day into the Strategic Oil Reserve so that it will lower gas prices and curb market speculation.........again.........more fuzzy math.

Passing a bill to stop putting 75,000 barrels a day into the SOR was just stupidity. There's no other word for it.

Note however, that a large number of Repuglicans also voted for the bill.

And it was John "Kill em all" McCain who came up with the equal moronic idea of suspending Federal gas taxes over the summer.

[W4HAY]

Actually, which party was in power didn't make a whole lot of difference for me, but then the fiscal spewings of politicians and the mass media have usually pegged out the ol' BS-O-Meter.

Following such publications as Kiplinger's Newsletters, WSJ, IBD, and Barron's -- to mention just a few, and keeping one's eyes and ears open at work will usually provide a heads-up and red flags as your ship approaches the shoals. If one does not take responsibility for one's own future and instead relies on others, well, -- hope ya got a good lifejacket! Ya snooze, ya lose!

IMHO the best $25 anyone could spend would be a subscription to Kiplinger's Personal Finance. And to listen to Dave Ramsey. You have to ask yourself that proverbial question: "Do people read (for instance) The Wall Street Journal because they're successful, or are they successful because they read The Wall Street Journal?"

To answer the original question, my worst years were during the late '70s (Carter), and the best were during the '80s and very early '90s (Reagan/Bush#1). The rest were OK, thanks mostly to the dot-com boom in the mid-90s, and the market rally following 9/11.

The on-going credit crunch and increasing world-wide demand for energy have long been detailed in various financial publications. Those that buried their heads in the sand are paying the price.

There is little governments can do to build economies -- other than stay the Hell out of the way, but a plethora of things they can do to wreck them.

[KD6NIG]

Passing a bill to stop putting 75,000 barrels a day into the SOR was just stupidity. There's no other word for it.

Note however, that a large number of Repuglicans also voted for the bill.

And it was John "Kill em all" McCain who came up with the equal moronic idea of suspending Federal gas taxes over the summer.

The SPR move was a "make it look like we're doing something" move that 99% of the country should have seen as such, hopefully.

I think it backfired and quietly we'll be putting some back in there shortly.

[KD5ZPG]

There is little governments can do to build economies -- other than stay the Hell out of the way, but a plethora of things they can do to wreck them.


Well said.............

[N1LAF]

Have you looked at the GDP numbers?

I mean really looked at them?

There are essentially five factors that go into GDP

Consumption
Gross Investment
Government Spending
Exports
Imports

Since bush took office:

1. Consumption is up, way up -- but all fueled by debt. According to bush himself, this is an 80% consumer driven economy. Do you remember his Christmas message in 2007 -- be a good American and go out and spend, spend, spend.

With consumers totally tapped out (no equity in their homes, no savings, downsizing because of the loss of good jobs overseas), where is the consumption going to come from??
What happened to personal responsibility? Are you responsible for your budget?

2. Gross Investment is down. The 500 largest corporate recipients of the bush tax cuts thanked the country by reducing capital investment in the U.S. by a couple of $100 billion. All while they moved about 1,000,000 good paying/high benefits jobs to Asia.
Maybe they should be taxed for those asian workers, at market wages. Something about fairness.


3. Government Spending: Waaaaay up. All backed by government DEBT. The U.S. national debt is up by over 80% since bush took office, and now stands at about $9,200,000,000,000 ($9.2 trillion dollars). THAT is the single biggest component of GDP increase over the past seven years.

No argument here. While deficit spending is the Keynesian fiscal policy for recessionary years, when the years are non-recessionary, we should have been saving for the next recession. But once Gov't starts spending on a program, they can't stop it.


4. Exports: Even with the recent decline in the dollar, exports have been declining.

5. Imports: Up big time, especially because of the increase in the price of gas -- a direct result of bush nearly doubling our national debt.

Net Exports. The decline of the dollar should have increased exports. Imports also get more expensive, and thus should decrease. Have you seen the prices of radio gear made abroad?


During the Clinton administration, we had vast expansion in the economy due to new business and new industry, not due to vast increases in public and private debt. And while we had these expansionary times, we should have been paying down the debt. Question: what started the expansion during the Clinton Presidency - Republican congress or Clinton policy?

[N1LAF]

2. More than doubling the price of gasoline to the American public.

According to the U.S. Energy Dept, the price of gasoline in the U.S. was around $2/gallon (often under) when bush took office.

In case you haven't noticed, it's now $4/gallon.




And it was stable at that price until the Democrats took control of congress.

[W5JO]

I never thought I would see a time when gasoline costs more than beer. The way things are going beer may catch up or disappear because all the grain will go into the gas tank and we will starve without fuel.

[K0RGR]

Now let me get this straight.............

The projected output of ANWR would be 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day but Democrats claim that amount is not enough to help lower gas prices, YET, these same Democrats pass a bill to stop putting 75,000 barrels a day into the Strategic Oil Reserve so that it will lower gas prices and curb market speculation.........again.........more fuzzy math.

The typical Algore(elitist !@#$)............do as I say.........not as I do!!! This is coming from the very party that has opposed any new nuclear power plants being built and you want to cry because we are using coal and natural gas.

And.......oh lookie there.......we MIGHT get a new refinery.



Sioux City Journal: Union County approves zoning ordinance for Hyperion (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/06/04/news/top/4e608d46402d5adb8625745e00110beb.txt)


Go visit a great circle map. The distance from Prudhoe Bay, AL to Shanghai , China is 6751 miles. The great circle distance from Prudhoe Bay to Lousiana, on the U.S. Gulf Coast, where most of our refineries are, is 5,731 miles. Unfortunately, that is a straight line distance and there is no pipeline from Alaska to Louisiana. Instead, the oil must go by sea. No oil tanker can fit through the Panama Canal, so the shortest route from Alaska, taking into account the oil pipeline across Alaska, which doesn't go to ANWR, and the route is 29,040 miles!

Now, say you're Exxon. China will pay as much as America will for the oil you just sucked out of ANWR. Do you ship it 6,000 miles to Shanghai, or halfway around the world to America for the same price?

ANWR might reduce the world price of oil, but more likely, it will just feed the ever-increasing Chinese oil addiction, while sucking down America's last proven domestic reserves. Exxon is spending hundreds of millions to get the rights to sell us out, and you're doing their work for them.

[NL7W]

Go visit a great circle map. The distance from Prudhoe Bay, AL to Shanghai , China is 6751 miles. The great circle distance from Prudhoe Bay to Lousiana, on the U.S. Gulf Coast, where most of our refineries are, is 5,731 miles. Unfortunately, that is a straight line distance and there is no pipeline from Alaska to Louisiana. Instead, the oil must go by sea. No oil tanker can fit through the Panama Canal, so the shortest route from Alaska, taking into account the oil pipeline across Alaska, which doesn't go to ANWR, and the route is 29,040 miles!

Now, say you're Exxon. China will pay as much as America will for the oil you just sucked out of ANWR. Do you ship it 6,000 miles to Shanghai, or halfway around the world to America for the same price?

ANWR might reduce the world price of oil, but more likely, it will just feed the ever-increasing Chinese oil addiction, while sucking down America's last proven domestic reserves. Exxon is spending hundreds of millions to get the rights to sell us out, and you're doing their work for them.

Your repeated argument goes nowhere, as usual. ANWR ships oil to refineries along the Pacific Rim. Much of our Alaskan oil is bound to West Coast refineries, it doesn't head to the Gulf, there's plenty of oil extracted right there. But, there could be more...

BTW, our West Coast refineries are presently glutted with oil, they cannot store anymore -- consumption is down in the West. So, where does Alaskan oil head? Our "world market" oil goes where it's designated purchaser determines -- probably SE Asia or some other pacific rim nation at the moment.

- 86 to 87 million barrels of oil produced daily world-wide.
- 85 million barrels of oil consumed daily world-wide.
- Such a tight supply in an unstable world drives up speculators' prices -- for one hit to the supply could cause havoc.

We don't like what's going on and the prices we all endure. Yet, we sit here and do nothing to increase supply. We're idiots.


Toodles.