Unemployment rate is the highest level in more than nine years

[Brie]

Replying to both LunarRay and JellyBaby,

I would first point our that I do agree that the focus needs to be on "demand side" but Bush is also pushing "supply side" to a lesser extent. A common misconseption is that "supply side" is a Reganomics term but in fact President Clinton pushed "Supply Side" to great effectiveness in his early presidency. As we all know now, the consumer demand demand was already there! and tax cuts (demand side) wernt needed at that time. I believe he didnt actually cut taxes significantly untill the late 90's, but correct me if im mistaken.

The best time for fiscal responsibility is during times of expansion. Why have debt and pay the unnecessary intrest during times of growth and surplus?!? The time for the government to accumlate debt is during the dips in the economy. While I feel that national debt is huge and it is a big issue (in the long run) we need it right now. I will get pissed when the next pres. (R or D) fails to eliminate the debt when the economy picks up and instead spend the money on the military, social progs. etc..

 

[AEB]

People like to blame bush for the ecnomic troubles, but its not his fault. Aside from the many companies that went bankrupt (imclone, enron, kmart, all the airlines) many financial analysists, including steve forbes, say the problems today are a result of the past administration.

And as for the comment about bush not caring about the middle class, if you look at the tax cuts the middle class benifited MORE that any one else. ANd its not like bush isnt trying to make jobs congres wont let him. i live in alaska and ANWR and the missle defense would bring lots of new jobs.

The biggest problem is people get freaked out by a decline injobs that really is tiny compared to other countries, so they stop spending, and when they stop spending we get deflation like they have in japan.

 

[JellyBaby]

Brie, you'd make a great and well-accepted white house economist.

But I think it's BS. Fiscal responsibility should always be paramount. The only time the Ds and Rs come close is when one has the white house and the other holds congress as it was in the 90s for a time.

During times of expansion, the government is taking in more money than it needs. That money should be returned to taxpayers. But because the feds have created such an appauling debt load now, in theory, that money must go to debt reduction. In reality, they always increase spending. Every time.

There was a time when the federal government ran without debt. Imagine that! Not it's burdened us with 40-50 trillion, factoring in SS/Medicare obligations. Bush's 2003 budget is 20+% higher than just two years ago, he's pushing for more entitlement programs, giving your money away to foreign bureacracies, bailing out South Amercia, the list goes on. When does it end?

No future R or D president will address the debt until it's well past too late. So get ready to be pissed at the next president you help put in office.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

But I think it's BS. Fiscal responsibility should always be paramount. The only time the Ds and Rs come close is when one has the white house and the other holds congress as it was in the 90s for a time.

Ditto . . .

 

[LunarRay]

Well... with the 'pee liddle thrigs' bouncing about in search of the Big Bad Wolf not much seems coming from the mouth of the Bushmeister regarding the Unemployed... but, if he gets us into more conflicts that problem will attrit itself away pronto.. more n one way to drink caffe ou lait... oui.. !?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Brie
The best time for fiscal responsibility is during times of expansion. Why have debt and pay the unnecessary intrest during times of growth and surplus?!? The time for the government to accumlate debt is during the dips in the economy. While I feel that national debt is huge and it is a big issue (in the long run) we need it right now. I will get pissed when the next pres. (R or D) fails to eliminate the debt when the economy picks up and instead spend the money on the military, social progs. etc..

Good words, Brie. Unfortunately, fiscal responsibility is (generally) not the realm of bureaucrats, but economists and other related professionals. Economists do not have to worry about elections, or about explaining to an uneducated populace why the national debt is such a bad thing.

Case in point, a discussion with a good friend of mine (comp. sci major) about macroeconomics, fiscal policy, the stock market, etc. Attempted to explain to him why the national debt was such a bad thing, and why we needed to pay it off - his response? "Why can't we just dissolve the contracts and get rid of it? It's not like anyone can challenge our economic superiority." After sputtering and laughing for a few minutes, I explained why we cannot exactly just "get rid of it".

As long as the public does not understand or does not care about our nation's fiscal obligations, officials who do not make eliminating the debt and balancing the budget a priority will keep getting elected, and the spiral will continue.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Brie
The best time for fiscal responsibility is during times of expansion. Why have debt and pay the unnecessary intrest during times of growth and surplus?!? The time for the government to accumlate debt is during the dips in the economy. While I feel that national debt is huge and it is a big issue (in the long run) we need it right now. I will get pissed when the next pres. (R or D) fails to eliminate the debt when the economy picks up and instead spend the money on the military, social progs. etc..

Good words, Brie. Unfortunately, fiscal responsibility is (generally) not the realm of bureaucrats, but economists and other related professionals. Economists do not have to worry about elections, or about explaining to an uneducated populace why the national debt is such a bad thing.

Case in point, a discussion with a good friend of mine (comp. sci major) about macroeconomics, fiscal policy, the stock market, etc. Attempted to explain to him why the national debt was such a bad thing, and why we needed to pay it off - his response? "Why can't we just dissolve the contracts and get rid of it? It's not like anyone can challenge our economic superiority." After sputtering and laughing for a few minutes, I explained why we cannot exactly just "get rid of it".

As long as the public does not understand or does not care about our nation's fiscal obligations, officials who do not make eliminating the debt and balancing the budget a priority will keep getting elected, and the spiral will continue.

We largely owe that money to ourselves. We could write off that debt, but it would hurt the folks holding that debt.

 

[AEB]

i concur that our government both democrats and republicans love to spend and waste our money. If people would have to pay all of their taxes at the end of the year instead of having them taken out every paycheck then i know they would be more involved in determining how the government spends their money. I live in alaska and we just came off a democratic governors reign who spent all of the texpayers money on stupid crap like costal trails(named after him of course) and other things we dont need. Under our new governor he is getting rid of unnessecary programs to balance the budget so our state doesnt go the way of california(26bil in debt) people complain about this but its nessecary. If politicans would stop playing politics and stand up for something i know we would be better off

 

[Brie]

I completely agree that my point is mostly invalid due to points all of you have raised. While there is no hope of fiscal responsibility from the president, congress or any other elected office there is no excuse for others. Advisors, and psudo gov. orginizations should have no excuse for their poor advice IMHO. I feel that they are way to politically motivated for their role of providing lets say economic analysis/advice. I hope that by posting some analysis (good or bad) of the not so bad inflation, the average forum reader would get more analysis and less politics and perhaps make their own decision.

Why can't we just dissolve the contracts and get rid of it?

:Q

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: AEB
i concur that our government both democrats and republicans love to spend and waste our money. If people would have to pay all of their taxes at the end of the year instead of having them taken out every paycheck then i know they would be more involved in determining how the government spends their money. I live in alaska and we just came off a democratic governors reign who spent all of the texpayers money on stupid crap like costal trails(named after him of course) and other things we dont need. Under our new governor he is getting rid of unnessecary programs to balance the budget so our state doesnt go the way of california(26bil in debt) people complain about this but its nessecary. If politicans would stop playing politics and stand up for something i know we would be better off

I hate the cycle your describing ... Why do we have to elect a new official just so he/she would be more responsible. So now as states are cutting everything in sight, the next canidate will have to SPEND money restoring the programs just to get elected. I want better canidates also How is Alaska this time of year?? Our sales tax is 8% here