@bouncybanannaYeah, you're actually pretty wrong on that one...Actually, the demographics of people on welfare is 40% white to 37-38% black, just so you knew that...And since the black population is about 30 million, and the white population is something like 200 million, I would expect more whites to be on welfare than blacks, but not by since a slim margin....just throwing that out there...
Guess what? Who gave clinton that economy? reagan and h. w. bush. i agree that current bush is totally mixing up everything he sticks his finger in, but ask any economist and they'll tell you that when the economy goes up it's the previous president's choices that made it go up. don't believe me? FDR didn't 'pull us out of the depression'. he died before we could totally get out, and no positive effects were seen until his third term as president, long after any of our presidents are allowed to serve.Plus, it's not like our economy is the only one going down. aside from the countries that produce the most oil (Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) most other countries are experiencing slumping economies also.Republicans do much better things to help the economy. We support lower taxes, globalization, and better education to eliminate the lower class. The democrats want to raise the minimum wage so that it will be more acceptable to be a lower class citizen. but when the minimum wage is increased, the value of our dollar goes down, because there is more money being paid to people who work jobs that should pay less, so then the cost of everything else goes up. food, oil (especially oil. in the past week we've seen a drop in oil. why? because the strength of our dollar went up), clothing, homes. If you don't believe the republicans have the right idea about the economy, then ask an economist what he/she thinks, because 90% of them (and i work with hundreds) will tell you your wrong and tell you what I just said.
>Guess what? Who gave clinton that>economy? reagan and h. w. bush. i agree>that current bush is totally mixing up>everythireagan and bush both ran deficits. its more complicated than just the last president. it can be a confidence thing. it can be a policy driven. it can be a sigh of relief. if we are fighting a war then some parts of the economy can do great but the production isn't consumable so it drives inflation. carter suffered from the inflation from viet nam. if obama pushes for new technology and it lowers the cost of living while creating jobs... that could cause the economy to spring back. thats war economy but it creates jobs, lowers cost of living and doesn't produce inflation.i think daddy bush got hurt by reagan "spend ourselves out of debt." so bizarre. there is a difference between good for the economy and good for people in the economy. business can do well at the same time people get hurt. while i agree that globalization is good... its the only way the 3rd world can get part of it all... it does hurt us. we have 50% dropout rate. those people aren't going to get jobs in technology... or service. they are labor. we export those jobs. >The democrats want to raise the minimum>wage so that it will be more acceptable>to be a lower class citizen. but when>the minimum wage is increased, the value>of our dollar goes down, because there>is more money being paid to people who>work jobs that should pay less, sohow did you determine what jobs should be paid less for having? what about health insurance? SOL? no insurance is bad for people and good for business. you hear the argument that national health care is bad... bad for who? is national health care bad because it creates a : bureaucracy ... but delivers health care to people with no insurance? the argument that it should be private is just trading one national : bureaucracy for a thousand : bureaucracies all with an incentive to deliver less health care. >because 90% of them (and i work with>hundreds) will tell you your wrong and>tell you what I just said.that doesn't make it right. it means they do better. its just entirely possible for business to better under republicans because under republicans they can do any damn thing they want. people work long for less. they will also tell you that government regulation is bad i bet. but without regulation we loose any semblance of a free market. monopolies form... then they use all the capitol and squeeze the little guys out.
Dr. Paul is a member of prominent economic committees. * Committee on Financial Services o Ranking Member - Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology o Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation * Committee on Foreign Affairs o Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight o Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere * Joint Economic CommitteeIsn't Dr. Paul the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology?
NAFTA is not free trade. It's government managed trade, and Bill Clinton campaigned for it. After contentious votes in the House and Senate, 234-200 and 68-31 respectively, he signed it into law in 1993. It was one of his first acts as President.The economic system you're looking for is called Protectionist. I would rather see a combination of all trade systems based on merit and public debate. We can trade with Mexico the same as we trade with Canada. This is a fact. They produce different goods in different categories, and this calls for more flexible trade policies than simply "free" or "fair" or "protectionist" or "mercantilist".
ousthouseAug 7, 2008
Whoever makes slightly more money than you
Closed AccountAug 8, 2008
@bouncybanannaYeah, you're actually pretty wrong on that one...Actually, the demographics of people on welfare is 40% white to 37-38% black, just so you knew that...And since the black population is about 30 million, and the white population is something like 200 million, I would expect more whites to be on welfare than blacks, but not by since a slim margin....just throwing that out there...
dcnative211Aug 9, 2008
Guess what? Who gave clinton that economy? reagan and h. w. bush. i agree that current bush is totally mixing up everything he sticks his finger in, but ask any economist and they'll tell you that when the economy goes up it's the previous president's choices that made it go up. don't believe me? FDR didn't 'pull us out of the depression'. he died before we could totally get out, and no positive effects were seen until his third term as president, long after any of our presidents are allowed to serve.Plus, it's not like our economy is the only one going down. aside from the countries that produce the most oil (Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) most other countries are experiencing slumping economies also.Republicans do much better things to help the economy. We support lower taxes, globalization, and better education to eliminate the lower class. The democrats want to raise the minimum wage so that it will be more acceptable to be a lower class citizen. but when the minimum wage is increased, the value of our dollar goes down, because there is more money being paid to people who work jobs that should pay less, so then the cost of everything else goes up. food, oil (especially oil. in the past week we've seen a drop in oil. why? because the strength of our dollar went up), clothing, homes. If you don't believe the republicans have the right idea about the economy, then ask an economist what he/she thinks, because 90% of them (and i work with hundreds) will tell you your wrong and tell you what I just said.
starmanjonesAug 14, 2008
>Guess what? Who gave clinton that>economy? reagan and h. w. bush. i agree>that current bush is totally mixing up>everythireagan and bush both ran deficits. its more complicated than just the last president. it can be a confidence thing. it can be a policy driven. it can be a sigh of relief. if we are fighting a war then some parts of the economy can do great but the production isn't consumable so it drives inflation. carter suffered from the inflation from viet nam. if obama pushes for new technology and it lowers the cost of living while creating jobs... that could cause the economy to spring back. thats war economy but it creates jobs, lowers cost of living and doesn't produce inflation.i think daddy bush got hurt by reagan "spend ourselves out of debt." so bizarre. there is a difference between good for the economy and good for people in the economy. business can do well at the same time people get hurt. while i agree that globalization is good... its the only way the 3rd world can get part of it all... it does hurt us. we have 50% dropout rate. those people aren't going to get jobs in technology... or service. they are labor. we export those jobs. >The democrats want to raise the minimum>wage so that it will be more acceptable>to be a lower class citizen. but when>the minimum wage is increased, the value>of our dollar goes down, because there>is more money being paid to people who>work jobs that should pay less, sohow did you determine what jobs should be paid less for having? what about health insurance? SOL? no insurance is bad for people and good for business. you hear the argument that national health care is bad... bad for who? is national health care bad because it creates a : bureaucracy ... but delivers health care to people with no insurance? the argument that it should be private is just trading one national : bureaucracy for a thousand : bureaucracies all with an incentive to deliver less health care. >because 90% of them (and i work with>hundreds) will tell you your wrong and>tell you what I just said.that doesn't make it right. it means they do better. its just entirely possible for business to better under republicans because under republicans they can do any damn thing they want. people work long for less. they will also tell you that government regulation is bad i bet. but without regulation we loose any semblance of a free market. monopolies form... then they use all the capitol and squeeze the little guys out.
dballaghAug 16, 2008
Wow, well said. One of the best comments I've read.
shigAug 31, 2008
Dr. Paul is a member of prominent economic committees. * Committee on Financial Services o Ranking Member - Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology o Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation * Committee on Foreign Affairs o Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight o Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere * Joint Economic CommitteeIsn't Dr. Paul the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology?
shigAug 31, 2008
NAFTA is not free trade. It's government managed trade, and Bill Clinton campaigned for it. After contentious votes in the House and Senate, 234-200 and 68-31 respectively, he signed it into law in 1993. It was one of his first acts as President.The economic system you're looking for is called Protectionist. I would rather see a combination of all trade systems based on merit and public debate. We can trade with Mexico the same as we trade with Canada. This is a fact. They produce different goods in different categories, and this calls for more flexible trade policies than simply "free" or "fair" or "protectionist" or "mercantilist".
shigAug 31, 2008
I mean to say "We CAN'T trade with Mexico the same as we trade with Canada". Sorry for any confusion.
Closed AccountDec 16, 2008
Did you miss it?.... Obama, Biden and McCain all voted FOR the bailouts... and continue to do so.