WE Blog

Sure blame everything on Bush, before him it was Clinton. Life is just not fair. I blame it all on the liberal News Media. What every it its. Go my man Mitt.

Clinton didn’t break the Democrat party: you’re not listening to Noonan, george.

Noonan is saying to the Republics: unless Republic pundits and other figurative shepherds who guide and form Republic opinions are willing and able to go through the kind of serious, introspective process of delineating exactly what’s happened to the GOP since 2000, why exactly they’ve strayed from American conservativism (as forged in the past 200 years or so west of the Mississippi) then — and ONLY then — is the GOP on the decline. Noonan is hoping Republics will heed her words and act in time to save the 2010 mid-terms.

This, by the way, is Ms. Noonan’s standard advice. In her words, “Sack up, get serious, define. That’s the way to help.” And by “sack up,” she means “man up.”

Noonan offered similar advice to the Democrats following the 2004 election. Say what you want about Peggy Noonan, because I know you will, but if you were stuck with only one piece of advice you could offer over and over, her “man up, get serious, define” would apply to damn near all occasions. A lot of people on the left resent like hell her words, mostly because she offers these words to Democrats only AFTER they’ve lost an election. And a lot of people on the right resist like hell her words (see george, above), although they should give her some credit at least for offering advice instead of pathology (at least she coughs up this bromide before election day). Today’s Republics resist her because they’ve adopted this toxic heuristic that “if you air the Republic’s dirty laundry in public, then you’re no Republic,” corollary to “you’re either with us or against us” (a binary recipe for certain disaster). She’s not above making mistakes in other areas (see her early undying loyalty to Augustus Stupidus, since recanted), but this is good advice. And timely. :D

Analysis may be Bush’s enemy, but it should not be the enemy of Republics in the post-Bush era.

outlander
Posted January 26, 2008 at 7:47 am | Permalink
Anyone surprised that Phillip chose to ignore the majority of the article about Bill Clinton and hone in on the Bush bashing paragraphs?
————
Not at all. It’s been obvious for some time that Phillip cares more about the Republics than the Democrats.

Voters have a clear choice this time around. The last Democratic administration brought peace and prosperity that included almost all Americans. The current administration has brought us constant wars and a prosperity that only included the very wealthy and large corporations. We also stand now on the brink of what will probably be remembered as the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Bush administration has in effect castrated the Republican party. What they have to show for 8 years of republicanism is not what most Americans want for this country.

Yes, Bush has broken his party. Where is the fiscal restraint most republicans claim to support? Where is the smaller government? Thanks to Bush, America may go the way of the old Soviet Union, for many of the same reasons.

And what does the religious right have to show for their support? Please show one thing Bush has done for his religious supporters.

Pulling the old republican coalition together again will take a miracle. The only way I see that happening is if Democrats run Hillary as their candidate. Will Democrats once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

I wouldn’t put it past them.

Seems to me the Republican Party has always re-invented itself to keep up with the times. During the Eisenhower Period, the Reagan-Bush Sr. period, during the Clinton Era (contract with America) and of course currently.

Conservative values are core, but the view of those values change as time progresses.

Fifty years ago, women wearing pants were mavericks and having three TV channels was the norm. The same applies to the adjustment of how values fit into the current party system. That is, we reflect the social trends and necessities of the society.

I think everyone is over analyzing the situation and should just relax.

Both parties are not for the American people. They have outgrown the citizens that say they represent. Sure they all have there grand plans to help us, so they say, but once they get inside of DC they all follow the money from lobbyist and special interest. What is bringing down this country is the politicians, they are the ones selling us out.

Noonan is right.

40 percent of the 9 Trillion dollar deficit occurred after Worst. President. Ever. signed seven years of spending bills.

40 percent.

NATIONAL DEBT GRAPH
(as a % of GDP)

The first massive red line skyrocketing upwards represents the debt growing under Reagan Bush.

The blue line trending down is Clinton.

The red line going back up again is Bush II.

Thanks to the website zFacts.com for above graphics

Wednesday, August 31, 2007

National Debt Tops $9 Trillion
When George W. Bush was inaugurated, January 20, 2001, the National Debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64. On this date, it reached: $9,005,648,561,262.70.

C’mon, George.

Just a little more of that can-do spirit, and you and Worst. Party. Ever. can double the national debt!

Thanks to zFacts.com for the above information and graphics.

Because, outlander, the Democratic party isn’t in control of anything.

Counting LIEberman, the Senate has a one vote majority for the Dems, and I don’t count that POS.

Besides, the President signs or vetos.

He’s the “decider,” remember?

LindainKS,

Thanks for the link.

But the Repuke party didn’t “lose its way.” This is a perfectly logical outgrowth of its horrible policies and its scorched earth policies against any and all opposition.

“Wonder how come the Democrats, who are in control of both Houses haven’t done anything about the national debt?”

Way to avoid the issue. Your rhetorical question ignores the fact that the debt ballooned under Republican control. BTW, the Democrats, other than chairmanships, do not have control of the Senate. Two independents caucus with the Democrats, and one of them can turn at any time.

Republicans have, at times (I hear this less nowadays) used the terminology “tax anc spend” to describe Democrats. Perhaps so, but the Republicans have added “borrow and spend” at an unprecedented rate.

Noonan’s advice to the GOP is that they’re at a fork in the road.

One, deny you’re at the fork, refuse to learn from Bush did to the GOP…and embark on a long (if you’re as lucky as the Democrats) road to decline.

Two, accept that you’re at the fork, “get serious, define.” The loss of power coming in 2008 will be temporary: no permanent decline. This self-analysis is necessary but not sufficient to avoiding decline.

So far, as measured by the responses here, the GOP’s choosin’ Option One.

Why am I not surprised? :D

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

hehe, Linda, some spin indeed.

“We failed by . . . being too successful.”

Sure, you did.

The Democrites can’t even pass the budget, they keep making extensions. Perhaps the dog at their legislation.

One of the conservative planks abandoned by the GOP under Bush can be seen in CapnAmerica’s chart above, from 9:59am.

The red/blue trend began under Reagan, but in his defense supply-side economics was new; more accurately the lack of academic evidence in support for supply side was absent.

Dick Darman, who was a GOP economic strategist for Reagan and who became Budget Director for GHW Bush, browbeat the GOP into raising taxes in 1990. This was the “read my lips” fiasco that so humiliated the GOP that they split the 1992 vote between Bush, Perot, and their couches (many didn’t vote).

Under Bush, Darman’s “we must act with total awareness of our fiscal responsibility” has been abandoned. Today’s GOP considers budget deficits acceptable and the public debt irrelevant. Under Bush, fiscal policy has been simply that tax cuts solve all problems and that Americans are responsible fiscally only to their own individual self-interest. “Tax cuts pay for themselves” repeated often enough allowed today’s Bush supporters to avoid the worst symptoms of cognitive dissonance. Darman died yesterday, btw…probably to be followed shortly by the GOP.

In other words, under Bush the GOP has abandoned one of its hallmarks, balanced budgets, to the Democrats.

Just one example of many.

Why? Because you had no bitch with the 5 trillion dollars before Bush took over.

Most accumulated under Bush 1 and Reagan. Idiot. It’s easy to see where the Puke debt accumulates. Whenever they get in, they spend Billions and billions on the military. Clinton had the military budget cut down to $250 billion, about what the rest of the world spends. Your Bush has it up to about a tillion a year. Every trillion added has been wasted in the desert, or spent on new war machines which will eventually rust away in our own deserts.

If you want to wail on the Dems for voting in entitlements we can’t afford, well then go ahead. There’s a BIG OLD WOLF waiting out there in that regard.

But for the most part, it has been REPUBLICANS who have run up our debt.

Gotta pick from enemies?

Noonan is more on point.

Rush, whose ego is at work here, vowed after his lost party lost in 2006 that “I’m not going to carry anyone’s water anymore.”

But of course, as we see here, he still is.

McCain and Huckabee differ only a shade and their nomination would be ruin, RUIN he’ll tell you.

Before you found your new new weblog toys Capn and posted the graph, I had posted the link and a similiar debate began, which today appears to be a rehash of.

Look at who controlled Congress during all those years.

Again, the national debt is the results of the actions of BOTH political parties over history.

Until you guys take your blinders off, and realize this truth – both parties will CONTINUE to pull the wool over you eyes. They need this US against THEM team battle to survive and continue.

I posted past, present, and future. We should share the same outrage – at BOTH parties, similiar to the outrage over illegal aliens, which I think crosses political lines.

Until we do, we are going to go further in debt.

But you really don’t give a rat’s ass. You just want to bitch.

If you did care, you would be emailing your congressional delegation and telling them NOT to approve the stimulus package without finding a funding source.

But you will keep pointing fingers and accomplish nothing here today.

Maybe some republicans will attempt to post on this thread with their viewpoints on the thread topic. But more than likely, it will just be libs explaining to republicans why their party is supposedly failing.

There is no GOP downfall. It’s amedia fantasy.

A couple of comments on the GOP and the Debt…..

Yes, a lot of Democrats bitched about the Debt LONG before Bush II. I was raising Hell during the REAGAN years about the deficits and debt.

Trickle down (a.k.a. Piss On You) economics have never produced a balanced budget – it is all smoke and mirrors.

Some here are blaming the Democrats for the Debt, presuming somehow that Republican presidents managed to lose the veto pen.

The budget process starts with the administration proposing a budget for the next fiscal year – Neither Reagan nor the Bushes ever even PROPOSED a balanced budget.

Clinton was responsible for $1.5 trillion – the Democrats can pay that off.

The Republicans are responsible for over $7.0 trillion – get your checkbooks out Conservatives.

The GOP is toast – just look at the “Bush III” approach that the Republican presidential candidates have taken – not one, except Ron Paul, has backed even a step away from Georgie.

And the GOP establishment is trying to neuter Ron Paul…….

Obama/Richardson 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we’ve done for you?”

This statement just blows my mind, it is horrid even for a pos reich winger like Noonan. While she is criticising the Clintons for supposedly using dirty trick…here she makes this comment.

This is NOT AT ALL characteristic of the rift between Obama and Hillary. This is the nature of a primary- that the ones on the same side have to fight against each other. The people who are making the biggest hype of this are the neocons who wish to divide and conquer…there is no end to their nasty tactics.

Noonan needs to be put right in the same category as Rush and Coulter. Note it wasn’t until Bush’s horridness was outed, that she finally decided to cut on him as well. Before, she couldn’t love him enough.

AmWay you met them at their door and they can’t take the truth. They stand around with hands out waiting for the next election and Bush beat them to the punch. He is giving them their checks early.

Any truthful poster would look at he history of the deficit and see what makes it move up or down. Clinton gutted the military – a proven fact – and Bush found himself fighting an attack on our homeland with a crippled military. He started an unpopular war and I won’t debate that here and had to spend money to bring the military to fighting strength both with personell and equipment.

Throw in Katrina and hungry politicians in LA and you have a deficit raising scenario.

I am disappointed with Bush and am not defending anything he has done. But I am also not heaping the deficit on his head and any blogger who does is ducking the truth IMOHO.

The republican party will survive. It may be changed in structure but will survive. Change sometimes is necessary and hard to face but very healing.

AmWay,

Please see this graph:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Since you seem to have trouble due to your Republican myopia, I will spell the graph out for you:

Under democratic presidents, the national debt went down. That trend continued under Nixon/Ford and Carter. Under Reagan/Bush I, the national debt shot up. Under Clinton there was a slight decline again and under Bush II, there was an increase.

Trying to make this a bipartisan issue is just plain dishonest, but thanks for playing, chump…

“Clinton gutted the military”

The Peace Dividend military began under Bush I, after the fall of the USSR. Clinton cut no more than Bush I did.

And Bush II managed pretty damned well in Afghanistan with the Clinton army. Iraq was unnecessary and was not planned by who?

Bush and the Neocons…………….

“Two weeks, two months, certainly not six months.”

Remember that?

WS you have put forth this argument before the facts don’t hold for you. The military was gutted under Clinton. Check out the facts. Look at the official government site. Posting a link about Rush’s anal cyst doesn’t support your position.

Look at the facts and post something that will support that the military wasn’t gutted.

Liberals advising conservatives?

I think we will do just fine, on our own.

Peggy Noonan and Rush Limbaugh are both important. We should listen to both.

However, Noonan is a little off the mark, in saying Limbaugh’s analysis of Huckabee and McCain is off the mark.

For starters, Limbaugh has NEVER given George W. Bush a pass. Limbaugh was hard on W. many, many times, over immigration, over McCain-Feingold, over the Ted Kennedy education bill, time and again, Limbaugh has let the President know when the base was unhappy with him.

Now, where Noonan also falls down is in her focus. To say that Bush has harmed the party is one thing. Actually, tough decisions had to be made, and there was no course of action Bush could have taken, that would have kept the Party perfectly happy.

Again, Noonans focus is off. Limbaugh is warning Republicans that McCain will divide the Republican Party even further.

Noonans argument is being misstated, by the left. The left would like to give us their take on Noonan: “Your Party is a wreck, time to take it to the salvage yard.”

That, of course, is not what Noonan is saying.
—–

By the way:

“Deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spending, but, instead, by periodic recessions” John F. Kennedy.

George W. Bush came to power during the Clinton recession, following the burst of the dot.com bubble.

Then, 9-11 happened.

Debt always goes up, during wartime.

One other things, libs:

What statistic do you have to show us, that somehow our economy is not strong?

Even if we are in a recession, we have a GDP which is LARGER now, than when Bush came to power.

Federal Revenue is at an all time high.

The number of people who are employed in American is at an all time high.

The unemployment rate is at historical lows.

We have a housing market correction, which has promted a stock market correction.

You want to use the stock market as a guide?

What is the driving force behind the stock market?

The value of any stock, in a nutshell, is a prediction of future corporate profits.

The stock market is NOT a history of what has happened, the stock market is a predictor of what might happen.

When the stock market dips, investors are simply predicting a drop in corporate profits.

I thought liberals did not like profits?

Even though taxes, on profits, help to pay down the deficit.

In fact, the only reason that the debt and deficit are prominent, again, is that we were about to BALANCE the budget, until inflation fears set in.

The taxes on dividends, capital gains and corporate profits were paying a huge amount into the federal treasury.

If the IRS isnt receiving as much money from corporate profits, where will that revenue have to come from, instead?

Again, lefties, be careful what you wish for.

Corporate profits are decreasing now.

Isn’t that what you wanted?

Clinton did gut the military. I went back and visit old shops in the 1990s where I use to work at and they either no longer existed or looked like ghost towns.

The rule in the 1990s, if you needed spare parts, better go out on the flight line and strip down a working aircraft, because there was no money to order new equipment.

The blunder butts on this blog don’t have a clue how deeply Clinton cut the military. It was a pitiful sight during the 1990s.

Paul Samuelson once said “The stock market has predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions:

https://www.oppenheimerfunds.com/targetedCopy/AdvisorPages/EOM/advequityCommentary_Jan2008Special.jhtml?SID=100&AN=oppbrief_01/22/08&HB=HBBEXNTUXAAAGETM&VN=351189932

As stated on another thread, I think that Congress and the Federal Reserve may have over reacted. Much of the volatility in the international markets, Monday and Tuesday, was due to a French computer hacker messing around with the market:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=510089&in_page_id=1811

Actually Mary, the Republican Congress balanced the budget.

AmWay is sure starting to sound like Regular in his hysterical use of ad homenim and “hypocrite.”

AmWay, take a breath and look at the graph I posted again.

It shows the national debt doing what under Clinton?

Going up or going down?

Think real hard, AmWay. Furrow your brow and narrow your eyes and follow the line with your finger.

Under Clinton, the national debt went down.

Sheesh, what a maroon.

I wonder if Willard Romney will mandate magic underwear. Will he launch a national effort to baptize the dead?

Since the GOP is aok with writing religion into law ya know.

Oh these are high times indeed. The NEW great hope of Rush and the shills is a kook.

How soon people forget. One of the reasons that the Democrats lost Congress races in 1994 was that they were making cuts, but raising taxes.

The “Contract with America” by the Republicans included a plan to balance the budget. Once in office, the Republicans had to compromise with Clinton on his huge tax increases, but ended up with the “power of the purse,” balancing the budget.

There was no surplus as Clinton played hocus pocus with the numbers and didn’t not include the Social Security deficit which would have put the numbers at a loss of -41 billion dollars.

Since Social Security isnt a part of the Budget, that figure is irrelevant, Ragular!! Totally irrelevant!!

It is considered off-budget Chas, yes that’s true sort of…

It is considered on budget when adjustments are made. It’s a revolving account that is neither off nor on budget.

It would be like saying the mortgage on your house is off-budget because it is a 30 year financial deal.

I dont think so Regular… My Mortgage is definitely a line item in my household budget… But Soc. Sec. is NOT a line item in the Fed. Budget!

bush HAS been good for the “haves”. He’s been even better for the “have mores”.

Now? THEY get to be the stand in for him. bush will descend into hiding and those few he has helped get to pay the piper.

Wow..lower taxes…what have I missed? Maybe I don’t understand it..but my taxes (federal or state) have never gone down. With inflation, I don’t notice anyone having more money to spend, I know I certainly don’t..yet government spending hasn’t appeared seemed to slow down much at all. How much is the Iraq war costing? How has the price of oil caused the cost of consumer goods to rise? Have you even been to the grocery lately? Even having more money to spent is irrelevant due to the rise in cost of living. But hey, you can pick up a house for a bargain right now. That was one thing good that happened because of the sub-prime lending disaster, never mind that the number of Americans who took out bankruptcy last year doubled. And then there’s the fact that we can all go to Walmart to buy China made products when we get our rebate check in the spring. That will make a huge difference in our lives, won’t it?

Chas if your home mortgage isn’t a line item on your budget and you didn’t make a principle payment each month what would happen? How about if you actually took out a home equity loan and gutted the principle each month? What would happen. Eventually you would owe more than your house is worth. What if you were using those dollars you were stripping out of your home equity to support your over inflated budget – what would happen?

This is what the government has been doing to SS for the last 50 years. That lockbox Algore talked about only has only got IOUs in it.

This is how a dishonest politician keeps it off budget.

BTW, I’m starting another job on Monday in addition to the one I already have…why? Because my house insurance, my property taxes, my fuel costs for my car, the cost of food, and the prise of natural gas has increaed to the point that what I make at one job isn’t enough to copver all my expenses anymore. I’m just thankful I’m in a profession that is in demand…I feel really bad for those who aren’t.

Sorry to hear about you having to work a second job Mary.

Rules of household finances is that if your mortgage exceeds 25 percent of your net income for the month, you have spent more than you can afford. They forget things like taxes and insurance can go up, along with household maintenance, upkeep, improvements and etc.

At the Republic Party debate the other night, each of the potential candidates was asked “Was the War on Iraq a good idea?”

With only the exception of Ron Paul, EVERY man answered that yes, it WAS a good idea.

Ron Paul is not going to get the nomination.

Sixty seven percent of the American people think that the War on Iraq was a BAD idea.

In November, the GOP nominee, whomever it may be, is going to have to answer, over and over again, why the think it was a “good idea.”

The Bush war of choice is going to be an albatross around the neck of the Republic nominee, just as LBJ’s expansion of the War in Vietnam hung around the necks of Democrats for years.

The American people have spoke, again and again, they consider Bush to be a lousy president and they overwhelmingly think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

George could not have screwed up more if he had set out to be the Worst President Ever.

And the GOP is going to pay for that for years.

Mary what you posted has so many holes in it I don’t have time to answer the entire thing. But you need to look at tax rates for the middle class, which is where I assume you are now, both under Bush and during the Clinton era.

Inflation is always a factor and will remain so as long as the cost of manufacturing continues to go up. When salaries and the cost of goods to produce go up so will the cost of the finished product. You would have to go back to the 1970s to find inflation that is rising to fast. From a low of 1.9% in 1986 to 2.2% in 1999 we really haven’t seen runaway inflation.

The media tells us one thing but common sense tell us another. Even with the cost of high fuel cost we aren’t looking at crippling inflation. Compare your salary in 1980 with today and then compare the cost of a loaf of bread for the same dates. How do the percentages stack up?

As for the housing market. Greed created the mortgage debacle and left alone it will cure itself. Government intervention will only make it worse. It affects a very small percentage of the mortgage industry.

Mary taxes and insurance going up are more a result of our local elections and environmental events not in control by politicians such as hurricaines, tornados, floods, etc…

We need to elect the right people. That is something we can control. The local situation here is a major reason our local taxes will shoot up next year.

Insurance is something that is our of most of our control. Raw material is very pricy right now because China is buying it up in bulk. Thus the cost of rebuilding is up.

Just a few thoughts on the subject.

Noonan said that?
In the immortal words of Colonel Hochsteder, “sometimes, from the mouths of babes and fools, comes infinite wisdom”.

Pedant
GDP is directly linked to corporate profits.
A recession is at least one quarter of negative growth in GDP.

Have we ever had a recession during a period of INCREASING corporate profits?

NO, we have not.

A Recession, then, is always accompanied by a decrease in corporate profits.

Well, I’m not taking a second job (yet), but anybody else notice that food is skyrocketing in price?

I’m single and last year I spent about $75 a week at the grocery store. Today that figure is closer to $90. The culprits in my grocery list are bread, milk, fresh and dried fruits, fresh vegetables, and coffee. These have all gone up. Some things have fallen in price, notably wine. I think the produce, bread, and dairy aisles are mostly behind the price increases. I suspect this may be due to fixed agricultural resources being taken out of current production and being put to growing corn, but I can’t prove it.

I also note that I’m paying a lot more in fees, especially debit card and banking fees.

I’m not sure where Bush’s Commerce Dept gets its CPI figures — who knows with these guys? — but quick calculation tells me that inflation isn’t so tame.

Mary
What, exactly, did Clinton do?

Name a Bill Clinton economic program?

He cut the military drastically. In hindsight, was that a good idea?

Also, the Republicans in Congress FORCED Clinton to keep his promise, on Welfare Reform.

Other than that, Clinton NEVER had a single policy initiative, that you can point to, that had anything to do with the economy.

outlander
Posted January 26, 2008 at 10:06 am | Permalink
Wonder how come the Democrats, who are in control of both Houses haven’t done anything about the national debt?

—————————————————

I’m surprised that National Debt clock isn’t running backwards now that the Democrats have been in power for over a year already.

And Steven Davis quoting history and assigning credit/blame to various administrations does nothing to solve the problem, especially when Davis doesn’t know the difference between National Debt and National Deficit.

Your lil story Davis was about the Deficits under each Administration going up or down. The National Debt continues to rise.

Get your facts straight before you try to take credit for your Democrats solving all the world’s problems again.

And if you want to play the blame game, which party controlled Congress for 40 years, increased Social spending exponentially, and SOLVED the war on poverty?

Oh, isn’t Poverty solved yet?

Hmmmm….

Socialism doesn’t work, does it?

Show me the details on one country where Socialism has worked for even a 100 year period.

Go ahead, show me.

Here’s something just for the Socialists out there:

Freedom.

What does that mean?

EVERY TIME beggers take a hand-out, they are taking away property that was EARNED by others who WORKED for it.

Freedom does NOT mean you are free to take from others.

Freedom does NOT mean you are free from having to do any work whatsover for your entire life.

Freedom means you have an OPPORTUNITY to live from the fruits of your labors. To reap what you sow. To keep the property that you make or earn for yourself. To not have your property taken from you. To be successful or not depends on how smart and how hard you WORK.

There are no guarantees in life.

Yet the Socialists think the working person is their guarantee.

Yes there is a role for government, a limited role. Yes we help those who are truly in need in order to avoid starving people to death. No that does not mean the role of government is to meet your every want and need.

For any government who sought to meet everyone’s wants and needs would have to take away freedom from all in order to redistribute from the productive to the unproductive, and the government would decide who gets what. That is NOT the role of the government of Free People.

And so now you know why Socialists do not talk about Freedom. Freedom cannot exist in a Socialist world.

“The Forgotten Man”
By William Graham Sumner

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/SumnerForgotten.htm

The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked.

I call C the Forgotten Man.

For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an equilibrium is produced by a re-adjustment of all interests and rights.

They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view.

They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion – that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it.

This latter is the Forgotten Man.

Dang it Regular, now you went and explained it all to Davis in a way he might understand!

Pedant
Tell me what happens when it is not profitable to produce?
When profits go down, PRODUCTION goes down.

Show me a company that keeps producing something that is not profitable to produce? I mean, a company that does not end up in Court, would you?

Profits decline, production declines, recession results.

And, note again, that the Democrat Party is the party of Bigotry, in America.

The Juvenile takes a shot at Mitt Romney’s religion nearly every day now.

The Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is also a Mormon, but that does not seem to matter.

Black Democrats, take note, the Juvenile wants to blow up Mexicans, on the border, with land mines.

The Juvenile is a bigot towards people of faith, especially the Mormon faith.

The Juvenile claims that he won’t support Obama because he is too “nice”???

I am thinking that Obama is too “Black” for the Juvenile Bigot.

“When profits go down, PRODUCTION goes down.”

Not true, profits and production do not go hand in hand.

It most certainly is possible to increase production while profits go down.

Happens all the time – it is called “market forces.”

Products are priced based on the market, not profit orientation or productivity or production.

The market determines the price.

Oh and I don’t support Obama because he wants to work with people like you paulthecon.

I’d rather chew broken glass than deal with you.

But mostly, I’d rather laugh as you slide into political oblivion. Shill.

WS
Companies will not continue to expand production when profits decrease.
At the very least, when profit margins narrow, a production plateau will be reached.

GDP is based on production.

Profits determine the level of production.

Unless you are in Cuba or the old Soviet Union.

WS
How can “profits remain high” if “nobody can afford to buy”????

“How can “profits remain high” if “nobody can afford to buy”????”

Easy.

Lots of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians support Romney:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/15/bob-jones-dean-endorses-romney/?mod=blogs

Is the public comfortable with a Woman as President?

Is the public comfortable with a Black Man as President?

is the Public comfortable with a Mormon as President?

I think the country can handle any of the above.

Also, I think an opinion poll asking if Romneys Mormon Faith MIGHT be an obstacle, is not the same as a Poll that asks, directly, “Would you ever vote for a Mormon” do you?

How about an opinion poll that asks, “Will gender be an obstacle to Hillary Clinton becomming President”?

How about an opinion poll that asks, “Will Race become an obstacle to Barack Obama becomming President”?

(Actually, it seems that the Democrats have their share of bigots, on the Obama queston. That is what the Clintons are banking on, a “White Backlash” after South Carolina)

“nobody can afford to buy”

And you quoted me as saying the above – I said “consumers.”

Don’t start with your usual tactics of distortions.

What I was saying in my posts was that there are many factors that influence profit, production and productivity.

You are trying to paint a black and white picture.

It ain’t so.

eco101: I think you will find the GDP is the sum and total of goods produced AND services rendered. Marx/Engles though that production alone, therefore labor, was of merit and the reason for the “distatorship of the proletariat” ie, ditch diggers got the same income as a doctor, etc. etc. Companies will expand if NET profit increases even though gross margins dimish per unit, for without this precept there is no economies of scale in reduction of unit price by washing more volume through a fixed overhead.

“And, note again, that the Democrat Party is the party of Bigotry, in America”

Posted by econ.

Really? Seems to me MLK was a Democrat. Guess he was a bigot. Hillary as well. How about FDR? Opps, another one. Yep, you’re correct again; all Democrats are bigots.

Now the Republicans don’t have any bigots, do they. Surely not Rush, or Coulter. Bigoted words would never leave their mouths. Nor would they pass Gulianni’s lips—wink, wink.

The thing is, econ, all parties have their resident bigots, and probably always will. It’s actually knowing who they are, and ignoring them that matters. Which means I should be ignoring you:-)

Max: What is a socialist anyway? Do you mean communists only or any govement intervention in the free marketplace , or how much intervention is allowed before that society becomes socalist? Are past and current bail-outs of the finance sectors socialists, or propping up private enterprisers with special tax break benefits not avaiable to the average citizen, socialist? Or is socialism just a boogeyman word folks like to throw around like Commie, or unpatriotic or liberal?

ksgrm
Posted January 26, 2008 at 1:29 pm | Permalink
Chas I forgot and did it again – Ok – just for you – take the average salary in 1980 and the average loaf of bread. See which one went up most. Simple enough. Fortunately not everyone was a babe in arms in 1980 and there were people making good salaries – for then – already.

gotta go -
===================================

Now, let’s see here — Now you want to take the AVERAGE salary from 1980… Thats totally different that what you ORIGINALLY spewed forth… same with bread… Please Note Carefully >>>

“Compare your salary in 1980 with today and then compare the cost of a loaf of bread for the same dates.”

NOW — When are you going to stop bashing ME, and stay on point, you cantankerous zit… Hmmmm??? I get tired of your constant spinning stuff into what was NOT said, and then answering a question that was not proffered… GET IT, WENCH???

Sursam
OF COURSE I am oversimplyfying the equation. Of course there are many variables.

However, my ORIGINAL point is that a decrease in corporate profits was REQUIRED for a recession to take place.

That is absolutely, positively correct.

WS, pedandtic, and others are trying to claim that you can have a recession without a reduction in corporate profits.

Right Econ… now plug the variables into your equation, and wow, it doesnt work!! Amazing… how would I have guessed that!!

You forgot the variables, Econ… Cant be doing that, geeenyyus…

Chas

My point, once again, is that a recession ALWAYS means that corporate profits have gone down.

ALWAYS

That is how we got on this economic debate, in the first place.

Of course there are many, many decisions that go into production of any product.

PROFIT is always the primary goal.

When projected profits can’t be made to work, production declines, GDP follows, if all companies cut back production.

Recessions ALWAYS happen as corporate profits decline.

Again, since Democrats seem to hate corporate profits, why do Democrats not like recessions?

Could it all be rhetoric, perhaps?

Do Democrats understand that corporate profits generate huge amounts of tax revenue?

However, you have to play your “class envy card” and attack corporate profits, when profits are high. Then, you attack Republicans, when profits decline (recession fears are up)?

Either way, you have a boogey man to attack, huh?

You still arent adding in the variables… Thus, you still dont have a working hypothesis!

“You did not have the authority.”

You are so full of shit, Rossell, and you lack in the capacity to read and comprehend.

“Projections of cost, that you made, were given to your superiors, who decided how much to FUND your department, based on profit/loss and cost/benefit (PROFIT PROJECTION0 criteria for the entire company.”

Complete bullshit, Rossell. Profit figures are built from the ground UP in manufacturing, not the other way around.

The projections of what is to be built and how many is the DRIVING criteria that determines those calculations.

Just because I did NOT directly determine indirect staffing, does not mean that the staffing was NOT determined based on my projections.

In most companies, there is a direct ratio formula to determine indirect staffing – those calculations are based on projections, such as the ones I was required to make.

“who decided how much to FUND your department”

My departments, purchasing, scheduling, shipping and receiving, warehousing, forecasting, etc, were part of the indirect staffing equation.

I determined what was to be made and how many.

A manufacturing company’s fiscal budget is built from the projections of sales – and that was just a part of my duties.

Grow a brain, Rossell, and join the reality based world.

Econ 101, you are right, some of us do want a recession. That way people will realize your can’t build an economy off the profits of oil from an expensive war in the middle east and they will get rid of the idiots who have convince so many people we need rich people to guide us and wars to protect our “freedom” (to drive our oversized vehicles).

“My point, once again, is that a recession ALWAYS means that corporate profits have gone down.

“ALWAYS”

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Such a statement wouldn’t get a passing grade in Econ 101!!

WS and Econ you had a very interesting dialogue while I was gone.

If a company is manufacturing 50 widgets a day on an assembly line that is capable of manufacturing 100 widgets a day then increasing the production would also increase the cost of the raw materials needed for the widgets, increased utilities needed to run the machines, increased personell to run the machines. Maybe no new management would be needed so the cost of product wouldn’t be affected by this.

Now the expense for the machinary would be the same percentage that was used for the original 50 which would be a little lower because it would be divided by 100 instead of 50 as well as accrued expenses for the depreciation on the machinery.

Moving these expenses to overhead would not be usefull because it would be an inaccurate picture of where production dollars are going. No stock holder would sit still and watch overhead go from 18% to 25% for instance in order not to spread the expense into production costs.

Therefore corporate profits wouldn’t go up or down by a measurable difference unless you dropped the price of the widget in order to sell more or if you were able to raise the price because the demand is high.

What will make the difference is when people guit buying because the economy is bad or if you glut the market and there is no longer a demand for the product. In either case personell will be laid off and the buying power of the employee will erode. Hence the start of the recession.

That is why there are markers that tell you exactly when a recession starts. Three quarters that contain these markers tell you we are in a recession. High unemployment is one of these. We have low unemployment and in fact the last 3 weeks have seen a decrease in the number of new applicants. This says we are not in a recessionary period yet.

We’re talking economy right? That and other things bush has ruined?

Well if you want more of the same as what we got then Willard Romney is your man!

He made his fortune moving money from the bottom to the top. The top in his case being him.

Like paulthecon and his ilk, Romney doesn’t see Americans. He sees human resources. Willard EMPLOYED illegal aliens. Who I guess he would call “motivated workers” or some such other lingual nicety.

And yes I will mention his faith. In recent primaries, 90% of Mormon voters chose him.

Now Senator Clinton is not pulling 90% of the female vote. And I don’t think Barack Obama has that same percentage of the black vote nailed down either.

So what is up with almost unanimous acclaim for Romney just on the basis of shared faith among Mormon voters?

Bush didn’t do this alone. The leadership of the Republican Party has little interest in limited government or fiscal restraint. They represent the average party member about as well as the Democrat leadership represents their party.

Is there really a difference at the national level between a Republican and a Democrat?

He would have if it was politically favorable.

By the way, materials are usually 70% plus of the cost of a manufactured item.

Utilities are a fractional cost.

Labor is normally 10 – 20 percent.

Indirect costs are spread over the entire cost of production.

You cannot hire 10% of a Purchasing Agent – they tend to get unhappy if you propose cutting them up into little pieces.

I worked manufacturing for 35 years – I know a bit about what I am talking about.

OK KsGrm — So YOU can jump in the middle of a conversation, but I CANT?? WENCH!! Thats not name calling… Thats just FACT!!

I was also working in 1980 — Mary isnt that much older or younger than me to make any real difference… You STILL Changed the parameters when I proved you to be silly!!

So, live with it!! It’s a public blog – Geez!!

Take a pill, and CHILL… WENCH!!

It’s always smart to read the original article when the Eagle editorial writers cite something on this blog, because their comments are frequently distorted. Noonan’s comments about Bush come in the 19th paragraph of a piece that is mainly about how despicable Bill Clinton is. But of course Brownlee, in typical journalistic fashion, took everything out of context and didn’t even mention the main points of Noonan’s article in his eagerness to make his own political points.