The dollar lost half its value under Bush - no other way to fund the war spending, corporate welfare and tax cuts. Same thing happened with Reagan but the war was Starwars spending and Baker was behind devaluing the dollar. **************************************************** Some more comparitive #s from Blinder: I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut. Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians. *************************************************** Fun watching the Palins twist in the wind - fuck the anti-abortion goobers. I'll laugh if Dad feels the same as I do.
The last war started by a Republican President resulting in American deaths prior to Iraq was the Civil War. Some history.
Yeah, I hear ya. Somehow the whole âgrandmaâ(Sarah) thing just turns me off. I was just getting in line for my shot at the new MILF in town. (Bristol)
Who started the war in Afghanistan? Who started the war in Iraq? Who has run up the largest deficit ever (in dollars)? Who left a deficit? Bush 1? Clinton? Reagan? Bush 2? Yep the repubs did...not the dems. You are not only past your prime, you are living in the past... Repubs had all the power for 6 years, and did nothing but spend, spend, spend needlessly.
You know TMZ is up in Alaska looking for dirt, and you know they will pay to find it. Don't you imagine that Larry Flint is going to have fun with this! Meanwhile, reality bites: <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2049527>
Osama Bin liden started the Afgan/Iraq war....The Iraq war was started by Saddem The fear of deficits is?...........most economists say higher interest rates.....seems like the biggest mistake has been interest rates to LOW Its not a deficit if we keep rolling it over and the lender never cash in.
You're smart enough to know much of Blinders point is bullshit. We'll talk the dollar/Reagan first. The dollar was VERY volatile in 84-87. In 84 or 85 the Pound was 1.05. The WSJ would have ads every day fror "grey market" German cars. The dollar crash in 87 was really just short covering and for all the ballyhoo of the 87 crash stocks still finished the year higher despite losing 22% in one day. There's only one economic reason for dollar weakness. We buy everything abroad and export squat. Rates diffs, budget deficits all bs. Look at the Yen. Japan is a fiscal disaster with 3 times the per capita debt as the U.S. and interest rates of zero. Their currency is viable because of exports. Period. Back to Blinder. Clinton economy was great. No two ways about it. But income stats and Dow stats are decieving because of inflation. For instance wage growth has been greater under Bush (or close) than to Clinton. Does it matter? No because prices paid are eating up the gains. It was the same thing with HST and LBJ wage growth. Wages bumping at 8% a year mean nothing if inflation is running the same. I grew up with Jack Bourudjian the guy who's on CNBC from the CME every now and then and I rememember him buying all these kick ass cyclicals in 83-85 because they hadn't moved up despite inflation increasing their book value 3 fold from the early 70's. He mopped up. Was the stock market rally a "bull item" for America? Not really because it wasn't based on productivity gains just inflation gains. IMO we'll see the same thing again. Stocks will exceed by a few cents not because of better business but because of inflated prices. A can of KO just moves higher so naturally KO rev keeps pace. It's a false premise to judge economic strength. In all honesty I haven't really seen an iota of correlation between Presidents and economic policy. In general I'd say a GOP congress has corelated to some good times but that's not a fer sure either. I've said for years if government was an arbiter of markets then why not bring in Hu Jintao.
You're certainly on the right track bud. A 44 year old woman has a 5 month old baby and the next thing you know, her 17 year old daughter is about 5 months preg. Shouldn't be too hard should it?