I guess you’re too young to remember Carter…[/quote]
Carter Was Genius and FAAAAAAAAAAAAR ahead of his time. You know this based on his Nobel Peace Prizes! He actually puts his status to work for the common welfare of the truly less fortunate.
The thing is, the economy actually much better today than it ever was in the 90’s.
Not A Chance and this is why…
I don’t know if you do or not, but if you own stocks/bonds, mutual funds, annuities, you’d know this to be true.
The Average American Does not own these things Nor can they afford too. That type of “work” is only afforded to the upper middle class and higher. Those that have large enough sums of disposable income to waste/invest on stuff like that.
But it’s not just the stock market - there are more jobs today than there was back then too. There are other factors of course, but it’s safe to say at this point that the economy is doing just fine.
Again, wrong. The economy is not doing just fine. (Granted, it’s doing just fine for a very select slice of the population but not for the majority of middle America)
You can make the argument that there are more jobs today than in the 90’s but NOTICE that you have mentioned nothing of quality. There may be more jobs but they are not salary jobs, they are hourly jobs that don’t support a family. They are jobs that don’t come with benefits. They are jobs that have been created to fill the void that was left by all of the outsourced salary jobs. “More jobs by itself” does not mean a better economy
You can’t base the entire economy on gas prices and heating/electric prices.
This kinda begs the question of my previous argument doesn’t it? IF the MORE jobs that we have now are really decent jobs who would really raise all the much of a stink over some higher gas prices… Our many more jobs would cover that price hike. But they don’t because they are remedial jobs that don’t cover those hikes. And because the Economy IS crappy you hear the bitching and moaning because nobody can really afford it.
The fact is, people by and large own more today than they ever have.
Ownership does not equal good economy. Yeah I own my car but it’s 12 years old and I didn’t get it new. the fact that it’s 12 years old and I’m unable to afford a new car, says more about the economy than ownership does. But according to your argument the economy is good because “I OWN” (A 12 year old car) something.
The fact is the only reason people are able to have these mega spending habits is because the credit card companies keep upping their limits to the point where they will have to file bankruptcy Bankruptcy is not good for the economy.
Here’s something else to consider and why party allegiances are useless. Anybody that’s ever taken a government class in school knows that congress runs the country, not the president.
That is some-what correct but a little too simplistic. Yes, Congress makes laws, but so what? they don’t make domestic and foreign policies. and domestic and foreign policy is what keeps our economy running. As the Top Person in the executive branch the president can pretty much do whatever he wants with out the approval of congress (with respect to policy Not laws) only when someone complains and sends it to the supreme court does his actions get called into question and then the program is stopped or permitted based on judicial review. For example Bush put the wire taps in place with out notifying congress. he didn’t need their approval to break that law. He says it’s legal so what happens… goes to the supreme court, CONGRESS is no where in that process. VITENAM never was a “war” still (Congress never officially declared War) didn’t keep Johnson from moving troops over there. the fact is that except for making laws the President can do whatever it is he wants to do until he’s called on it by somebody.
This is why the democrats are so happy today, and rightfully so. But remember, when Reagan and Bush Sr were presidents, we had a democratic majority in congress. So all the Reaganites can thank the democrats for the 80’s and the Clintonians can thank the republicans for the 90’s, at least after Newt Gingrich and the republicans took over congress mid-term. Only time will tell what effect the all-republican Bush Jr years will have. Economic policies take years to make an effect.
Congress has nothing to do with foreign and domestic policy. And for the record the 80’s sucked for middle America because Reagen was Acting like a president rather than being one. Since he new nothing of domestic and foreign policy the country suffered for it.
Clinton - a scholar - new all about domestic and foreign policy making our country at least function able and didn’t have our dollar lose ground every month.
Still, it’s better to have a checks and balances. I’d rather see one party take the president and the other party take congress. That seems to have historically better results.
I’ll nod my head to that
As for the greed of the republicans vs democrats - you’re fooling yourself on that one. There’s no way one party has more virtue than the other - both parties are greedy as hell, it’s only the democrats that pretend not to be. Believe me, the Clinton cared as little about you as the Bush’s.
Democrats have traditionally been for little guy far more than the republican machine. I certainly agree that Clinton didn’t care about middle America as much as he professed he did . But he at least threw us a bone every now and again.
The democrats have the wrong philosophy overall. They want bigger government to protect you from yourselves.
HA HA really like how? you mean like patriot act proposals? Like banning abortion? like anti stem cell research? I think not! It would seem the republicans are constantly on the Values tip trying to legislate morals and shit, NOT democrats.
They create more laws and more bureaucracy because that’s what many of the people in their constituency want - they want their government to take care of them like the proverbial big brother.
NO they don’t, Flat out, No they don’t. Yes they want government to take care of them but not in the manner that you’re suggesting. They want roads they want schools libraries domestic programs to help the less fortunate…you know, those people with the many/mini jobs?
And I would suggest to you that if they do create bureaucracy it’s to make it a little harder for these damn republicans from walking off with everybody’s pensions.
They love big brother because they don’t have to risk as much. Life is far easier when your parents pay for everything. But in that environment it doesn’t pay to think bigger. Why bother?
Some people don’t have anything to risk… I think you are forgetting that. You’re coming at it from one angle.
The republicans used to have the right philosophy. You hire elected officials to fight wars for you and keep the defense plants stocked with employed Americans and the local jurisdictions handles their own economy. Republicans used to mean less government which was good for big business, which employed the Americans and kept the economy strong.
Then the republicans switched over and Bush Jr. made the government bigger and bigger. Jobs started going overseas because America didn’t have a good environment for big business anymore. The republicans got less conservative overall so in protest the republicans stayed home on election day and they lost it all.
Really? jobs over seas?? In this good economy? Republicans have always been for gigantic government as well as Secrecy! which makes me distrustful of them (generalizing here)
[quote]But as long as there’s a republican president there’s always going to be good music. So here’s to keeping a republican president and a democratic congress, just like the Reagan years, the best decade for industrial and and punk rock ever!
Yikes? Where’d you go to school at?
Late,
grmpysmrf