Recession coming

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The chart isn't about slashing..it is about GROWTH. And, it certainly isn't comparing it like you are doing.

Partial, taking a page from lying with statistics.

No, YOU are Ty.

See that little line on your graph that says "0"? Anything above that is GROWING, or is being FUNDED. Anything below it is NOT GROWING, or is being CUT.

Clinton's defense spending DECLINED at a rate of around 3% annually according to your graph. It did not grow whatsoever...but keep telling yourself that it did.

What you are pointing out is that Clinton's rate of CUTS were smaller in relation to the budget as a whole than they were for Bush Sr. However, that does not change the fact that Clinton's budget CUT defense spending.

If you honestly believe Clinton increased defense spending by looking at that graph, you are a dumbass.

NO, that is exactly my point.

I'm having two conversations. With you i'm in agreement. Perhaps the using the term growth was poor..shoulda said negative growth.

With partial's stupidity, i'm not. He was comparing..and i'm saying that if you you compare...clinton is slashing it less..thus killing it slower.

[Scott Campbell]

The total budget deficit/surplus also included stock option tax revenue from the dot.bomb bubble. Thus it completely penalized Bush, and rewarded Clinton. Therefore I don't believe it to be a true barometer of financial performance.

I would agree with you.

Granted, Bush is a free-spending cowboy who doesn't have the sense to understand even the most simple economic principles...as he speech last week clearly points out.

However, Clinton got the benefit of an economy running on nitrous oxide...which couldn't possibly be sustainable long term. How that impacts the graphs? I'm not sure...I'm sure it does, although I'm not sure exactly to what extent.

Nitrous oxide = Irrational exuberance.

To what extent?

I think it would turn Clinton from winner to loser, and Bush from huge loser into moderate loser. That's just my gut feeling. Its hard to gauge where Bush would be without 9/11, but I freely admit that he doesn't really inspire much confidence.

If you listened to Greenspan speak to Congress in the late 90's, he typically wove one metric into his explanation of our our robust economic growth despite the flight of manufacturing from the US. That metric was something like unit output per hour of labor. I never hear it anymore, but it was some government code speak for productivity.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The total budget deficit/surplus also included stock option tax revenue from the dot.bomb bubble. Thus it completely penalized Bush, and rewarded Clinton. Therefore I don't believe it to be a true barometer of financial performance.

I would agree with you.

Granted, Bush is a free-spending cowboy who doesn't have the sense to understand even the most simple economic principles...as he speech last week clearly points out.

However, Clinton got the benefit of an economy running on nitrous oxide...which couldn't possibly be sustainable long term. How that impacts the graphs? I'm not sure...I'm sure it does, although I'm not sure exactly to what extent.

Nitrous oxide = Irrational exuberance.

To what extent?

I think it would turn Clinton from winner to loser, and Bush from huge loser into moderate loser. That's just my gut feeling. Its hard to gauge where Bush would be without 9/11, but I freely admit that he doesn't really inspire much confidence.

If you listened to Greenspan speak to Congress in the late 90's, he typically wove one metric into his explanation of our our robust economic growth despite the flight of manufacturing from the US. That metric was something like unit output per hour of labor. I never hear it anymore, but it was some government code speak for productivity.

Scott,

Though i dont' know you, i at least respect your conservative viewpoint. And, calling Bush a mod loser reaffirmed my belief.

In my mind, calling a conservative like yourself a repub is an insult.

[The Leaper]

Actually, you would be wrong.

Under Clinton the defense budget ROSE as compared to Bush Sr.

No Ty. You do not agree with me, which is why you said I "would be wrong" and said the defense budget "ROSE" under Clinton.

I was never wrong once in this thread relating to my comments pertaining to defense spending.

As I pointed out, the defense budget was cut 18% from 1992-1999. However, you apparently think that means the defense budget rose.

[Partial]

Fuggin crackhead.

What scares me is that someone like Ty is going to be in charge of the US financial situation if Obama gets elected.

I know it might not seem like things could get worse...but they most certainly can.

If Tyrone was in charge, you wouldn't have the problem to begin with. Tyrone doesn't start unfounded wars, doesn't have closed door energy policies, and his crackhead friends always keep strict control of their cash..as dealers dont' take CREDIT!

It's easy to say all this, but when you have a responsibility to 300 million people and their safety it is quite a bit different when implementing it.

It'd be nice to have a better energy policy, but just about everything I have read on this puts the responsibility on businesses and that will end up increasing costs of operation. Business owners aren't going to want to cut profits, so they are either going to raise prices for everyone, cut wages of employees, or more realistically both.

Also, its easy to say alternative fuels are the future but if you haven't noticed there hasn't been a lot of progression in renewable energy. Like fossil fuels, many questions and problems still exist with each potential type.

I am all for using dollars instead of credit. IMO, people should have to have 30% down to buy a house in equity and put at least 20% down in cash. If they screw up their lives and get foreclosed on, then they should have to suffer the consequences of their actions themselves.

[The Leaper]

If you listened to Greenspan speak to Congress in the late 90's, he typically wove one metric into his explanation of our our robust economic growth despite the flight of manufacturing from the US. That metric was something like unit output per hour of labor. I never hear it anymore, but it was some government code speak for productivity.

That productivity increase we saw in the 1990s was also a big reason why we've lost so many jobs. Obama and Clinton try to pin it on NAFTA...but many of the jobs lost around me in Ohio are due to increased productivity because of the rise of computers and technology...especially in manufacturing.

Unions are going to price themselves out of business. They lived fat in much of the last century, but as technology continues to rise, companies aren't going to pay through the nose for unskilled labor when they can buy a machine to do it faster, cheaper and more efficiently.

[Partial]

The chart isn't about slashing..it is about GROWTH. And, it certainly isn't comparing it like you are doing.

Partial, taking a page from lying with statistics.

No, YOU are Ty.

See that little line on your graph that says "0"? Anything above that is GROWING, or is being FUNDED. Anything below it is NOT GROWING, or is being CUT.

Clinton's defense spending DECLINED at a rate of around 3% annually according to your graph. It did not grow whatsoever...but keep telling yourself that it did.

What you are pointing out is that Clinton's rate of CUTS were smaller in relation to the budget as a whole than they were for Bush Sr. However, that does not change the fact that Clinton's budget CUT defense spending.

If you honestly believe Clinton increased defense spending by looking at that graph, you are a dumbass.

NO, that is exactly my point.

I'm having two conversations. With you i'm in agreement. Perhaps the using the term growth was poor..shoulda said negative growth.

With partial's stupidity, i'm not. He was comparing..and i'm saying that if you you compare...clinton is slashing it less..thus killing it slower.

The only one here who read it wrong was you. We all know how to read graphs. Except you, evidently.

Bush cut it. Clinton cut it. Therefore, both cut it. Clinton didn't address the fact that it was low enough as is, and failed to raise it up.

I don't get whats hard to understand about that?

[Partial]

If you listened to Greenspan speak to Congress in the late 90's, he typically wove one metric into his explanation of our our robust economic growth despite the flight of manufacturing from the US. That metric was something like unit output per hour of labor. I never hear it anymore, but it was some government code speak for productivity.

That productivity increase we saw in the 1990s was also a big reason why we've lost so many jobs. Obama and Clinton try to pin it on NAFTA...but many of the jobs lost around me in Ohio are due to increased productivity because of the rise of computers and technology...especially in manufacturing.

Unions are going to price themselves out of business. They lived fat in much of the last century, but as technology continues to rise, companies aren't going to pay through the nose for unskilled labor when they can buy a machine to do it faster, cheaper and more efficiently.

Bingo, but I also think its about time they end or renegoiate NAFTA.

[Joemailman]

Actually, you would be wrong.

Under Clinton the defense budget ROSE as compared to Bush Sr.

No Ty. You do not agree with me, which is why you said I "would be wrong" and said the defense budget "ROSE" under Clinton.

I was never wrong once in this thread relating to my comments pertaining to defense spending.

As I pointed out, the defense budget was cut 18% from 1992-1999. However, you apparently think that means the defense budget rose.

Let me try. It looks to me like defense spending was cut during the Clinton years, but the cuts were at a lesser rate than during the Bush Sr. years.

[Partial]

Actually, you would be wrong.

Under Clinton the defense budget ROSE as compared to Bush Sr.

No Ty. You do not agree with me, which is why you said I "would be wrong" and said the defense budget "ROSE" under Clinton.

I was never wrong once in this thread relating to my comments pertaining to defense spending.

As I pointed out, the defense budget was cut 18% from 1992-1999. However, you apparently think that means the defense budget rose.

Let me try. It looks to me like defense spending was cut during the Clinton years, but the cuts were at a lesser rate than during the Bush Sr. years.

Precisely. All that means though is the negative slope of the graph is slightly less than Bush's. Clinton's low point on the graph is below Bush's.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Actually, you would be wrong.

Under Clinton the defense budget ROSE as compared to Bush Sr.

No Ty. You do not agree with me, which is why you said I "would be wrong" and said the defense budget "ROSE" under Clinton.

I was never wrong once in this thread relating to my comments pertaining to defense spending.

As I pointed out, the defense budget was cut 18% from 1992-1999. However, you apparently think that means the defense budget rose.

No, you are misunderstanding...thru my poor communication. Maybe you missed my edit where i said..negative growth.

When i said "rose" i meant the spending decrease was less than before in comparison. Like if we were plotting it on a graph..from Bush (point a) to Clinton (point b) the line would be going up.

Like i said, my miscommunication.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott,

Though i dont' know you, i at least respect your conservative viewpoint. And, calling Bush a mod loser reaffirmed my belief.

In my mind, calling a conservative like yourself a repub is an insult.

Fiscal conservative, social moderate.

And while I know what I don't like, I also know I don't have all the answers.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The chart isn't about slashing..it is about GROWTH. And, it certainly isn't comparing it like you are doing.

Partial, taking a page from lying with statistics.

No, YOU are Ty.

See that little line on your graph that says "0"? Anything above that is GROWING, or is being FUNDED. Anything below it is NOT GROWING, or is being CUT.

Clinton's defense spending DECLINED at a rate of around 3% annually according to your graph. It did not grow whatsoever...but keep telling yourself that it did.

What you are pointing out is that Clinton's rate of CUTS were smaller in relation to the budget as a whole than they were for Bush Sr. However, that does not change the fact that Clinton's budget CUT defense spending.

If you honestly believe Clinton increased defense spending by looking at that graph, you are a dumbass.

NO, that is exactly my point.

I'm having two conversations. With you i'm in agreement. Perhaps the using the term growth was poor..shoulda said negative growth.

With partial's stupidity, i'm not. He was comparing..and i'm saying that if you you compare...clinton is slashing it less..thus killing it slower.

The only one here who read it wrong was you. We all know how to read graphs. Except you, evidently.

Bush cut it. Clinton cut it. Therefore, both cut it. Clinton didn't address the fact that it was low enough as is, and failed to raise it up.

I don't get whats hard to understand about that?

Nothing, except for the fact that YOU WOULD BE WRONG IN BLAMING CLINTON. And, you would be wrong in saying that it was worse under him.

And, if it was low...why do you blame him..not Bush who had cut it worse..clinton slowed the cutting..and as Leaper has said..it WAS BI FUCKING PARTISAN.

And, lastly...you can't even tie in defense budget to 911.

[Scott Campbell]

Actually, you would be wrong.

Under Clinton the defense budget ROSE as compared to Bush Sr.

No Ty. You do not agree with me, which is why you said I "would be wrong" and said the defense budget "ROSE" under Clinton.

I was never wrong once in this thread relating to my comments pertaining to defense spending.

As I pointed out, the defense budget was cut 18% from 1992-1999. However, you apparently think that means the defense budget rose.

No, you are misunderstanding...thru my poor communication. Maybe you missed my edit where i said..negative growth.

When i said "rose" i meant the spending decrease was less than before in comparison. Like if we were plotting it on a graph..from Bush (point a) to Clinton (point b) the line would be going up.

Like i said, my miscommunication.

LOL

You can spin it however you want, but I still think you just fucked up reading the graph. No biggie.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Scott,

Though i dont' know you, i at least respect your conservative viewpoint. And, calling Bush a mod loser reaffirmed my belief.

In my mind, calling a conservative like yourself a repub is an insult.

Fiscal conservative, social moderate.

And while I know what I don't like, I also know I don't have all the answers.

I know that about you.

Like i said, calling you a repub is an insult.

And, at least i feel that you are not a blind party loyalist.