"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Oh right, you claimed that Bush's tax cuts are going to erase the
deficit someday... funny how that didn't work last time, and the pros
don't think it's going to work this time either...

NOYB wrote:
Shall I use a clip and paste from the wikipedia website link that you
posted here?

" According to the "baseline" forecast of federal revenue and spending
by the Congressional Budget Office (in its January 2005 Baseline Budget
Projections), the trend of growing deficits under Bush's first term will
become shrinking deficits in his second term. In this projection the
deficit will fall to $368 billion in 2005, $261 billion in 2007, and
$207 billion in 2009, WITH A SMALL SURPLUS BY 2012. "

Funny how you left out the part about this being based on leaving out the
Iraq war expenditure, on letting the tax cuts expire, and that assuming
the tax cuts stay in place and the economy grows at a less-than-record
pace (BTW in case you were wondering, that 3.5% you were crowing about
ain't nowhere near "record"), then that wonderful 2012 surplus turns into
a walloping huge ongoing deficit.

Maybe you thought a little editing would fool somebody? Maybe it's your
reading skills?


A depressed dollar is good for helping keep jobs in the US.

But how come jobs are leaving in record rates then?



Cheap labor. Less stringent environmental standards.

That was the case well before 1998, when manufacturing jobs peaked.

If the Clinton economy was so terrible, how come manufacturing jobs
continued to grow?

Actually, they didn't. Manufacturing jobs peaked at 17,708,000 jobs in
June of 1998. By the time Bush took office, the number of manufacturing
jobs had fallen all the way to 16,993,000.

For the mathematically impaired folks (like yourself) that's about a 4%
drop in the number of manufacturing jobs over the last 2 1/2 years of
Clinton's presidency. That shows that a pretty clear downwards trend had
already begun at least 2 years before Bush took office. What caused the
drop? Maybe you should ask Ross Perot.



www.bls.gov




How come Bush hasn't been able to reverse the downward trend since then,
with all his tremendous job growth? How come you point with pride to a
measly 3.5% GDP growth when that would be one of the *lowest* GDP growth
rates under Clinton?

Let's look at a comparison (based on chained 2000 dollars):

Bush 1st quarter of second term: 3.5%
Clinton 1st quarter of second term: 3.1%

Bush 3rd year of 1st term: 3.0%
Clinton 3rd year of 1st term: 2.5%

Bush 4th year of 1st term: 4.4%
Clinton 4th year of 1st term: 3.7%





... It makes US-made products seem cheaper. Of course, your statement
is erroneous: the dollar has been heading back up against all
currencies except for the yuan.

This week yes, largely due to a panic on the euro.


Why is there panic on the euro? Perhaps because the EU economy is
horrendous?


The EU economy is quite a mixed bag, including a number of those cheap
labor, no environmental standards countries you complain about. The panic
is largely due to the recent 'Non' vote in France.

...and unemployment numbers.




But the long term trend is certainly down, and the dollar is still
averaging lower than it's been in a long time.


The short term trend is up. These are lagging indicators. The short
term trend is more important for predicting the near-future.

blah blah blah... so you think the US dependence on oil, the deficit, the
growing trade imbalance, are going to 8strengthen* the dollar in the near
future??

I hope not. The dollar is at a level that will bring investment (and
jobs) back to America *if* the Chinese ever begin to float their currency.



Short term thinking, is that what you base your strategy on? I thought
short term greed was a moral failing?

Short term trends are a crystal ball for the immediate future. We've
already had 42 months of GDP growth, and 23 months of net job gains. The
short term trends are very positive right now. When coupled with the
recent economic data from the last couple of years, it shows our economy
is doing pretty darn well.






But hey, according to you, the economy is booming!


Not according to just me...but according to the economic indicators that
I've posted here.


Really? How come the economic indicators you've posted hear point to
modest growth *at best*

As I showed you, the economy's numbers over the last 2 1/4 years are
better than the numbers from the last 2 years of Clinton's first term.
Were you full of so much doom and gloom in early 1997 when Clinton had
poorer numbers than Bush in the same time frame?


and the rest is all hot air and
self-contradictory blather? Does the Fed drop the prime rate on an
economy that's booming?

They'll drop the rate whenever they can get away with it...until inflation
starts to peak.


Is the deficit shrinking yet?

No.



How come you still haven't explained why President Bush didn't say last
year, 'Yes we have lost a lot of jobs but we're gaining them back"

He did say exactly that.


Now there you go again....confusing the poor guy with facts.