TPS

Would it make you happier if I called it the recession of 1981/82 as a way to identify it? I certainly wouldn't want to get it mixed up with the Bush 1 recession or the Bush 2 recession..

That's the point isn't it? Actually, of all of the comments so far, I agree mostly with chef's: presidents have less to do with overall economic growth than people give them credit or blame for. My original post with the data was an attempt to show that point. Can anyone remember any significant economic policy Carter enacted? Just as Clinton was the beneficiary of long term positive economic changes, Carter was in office at the start of long term negative economic changes (deindustrialization) and another OPEC embargo. The right wants to give credit to Reagan for an economy that was relatively average on the one hand, but they won't blame either Bushes for terrible economic performance on the other. They blame Carter for poor performance on the one hand, but won't give Clinton credit on the other. Which is it? Can a president make a significant impact on the economy or not? I would say that policies enacted by administrations have a greater impact on the distribution of income than income growth in general. Tomorrow I'll post some data to this effect. As far as remembering the past, I did just fine during Carter's term.

Got me.

Geez, I can't fight those kinds of arguments: memories of 6 and 8 year olds. how'd you do during Reagan's recession in 1981 and 82, when unemployment was over 10%? Can you remember that?

What would you say are the most important economic statistics when measuring economic performance?

Maybe you are mixing your memories with Reagan's term. Yes, after the second OPEC oil embargo (Carter's fault?) inflation and interest rates increased, especially toward the end of 1979 and into 1980. However, UP never was never higher than 7.8% under Carter, whereas it hit over 11% under Reagan. As for GDP, those are real growth rate figures. That means even though inflation was relatively high (I don't believe it reached double digits), most people's incomes kept pace, and even grew faster than prices. No, it wasn't like the 1960s or 1990s, but when you compare most statistics that we use to measure how well the economy performed, Carter ranks in the middle with Reagan. The difference is there was a lower average UP rate under Carter, but a lower average inflation rate under REagan. Real GDP growth was about the same, as I posted.

So you would argue that the original poster is wrong then? Since the president can't impact GDP and the economy in general?

Another rightwing non-fact checking homer. Real average growth rates of GDP under the last six administrations: Nixon/Ford= 2.6% Carter= 3.3% Reagan= 3.4% Bush1= 2.1% Clinton= 3.7% Bush2= 1.9% Such misery under Carter. Looks like we need the prosperity the Bushes offer....

Not quote: it's small business good; MNC bad...

We had Outer Circle Orchestra. Pretty sure they are still performing. We had a DJ do the traditional stuff, then OCC came on the last couple of hours. Reggae/rock, lots of energy. Everyone was dancing.

Does anyone take these seriously anymore? There are no questions that the candidates aren't aware of; no questions from each other; it's simply a (pre-known) question and response. Kind of like Bush's press conferences.

I think it will be a close game, with the Bills actually squeezing out a win this time. Two things: 1. The Bills running game is better than most think. They ran the ball decently against two of the best run-stuffing teams in the league. Jaxsonville gave up their first 100-yard rush game in 15 games yesterday. Oakland has Ted W, maybe the best run-stuffing 3-4 DT of all time. 2. NE's D is only adequate against the run. They gave up 200 yards to Indy at home. Of course, it's only a prediciton...

You also need to consider exchange rate risk if you are going to manufacture in the US and primarily sell in Europe (part i).

John, I think an important question to ask you first is, what are your sources of news? If you are a FOX news watcher, you are going to get a very biased view of Kerry. Not saying that I support Kerry, but I have read and seen him give (parts of) speeches about different issues. I'm sure FOX paints him one way only, just like they paint Bush with one brush. Personally, I am not voting for either candidate.

Two things: Note that I said "almost all of the benefits..." Second, if you are currently paying taxes on dividends, then you need a new financial planner.

Seems to me there's a bit of a contradiction in your argument. I assume you mean that those in the lower classes who would end up paying higher taxes wouldn't support either the flat or vat? If so, how is it that congress was able to pass a tax change that cut taxes on dividends and eliminated the estate tax, when almost all of the benefits of these accrue to the top 2% of households?

Allawi was essentially appointed by the administration, and has no popular support in Iraq. So if he describes a reality that fits into the panglossian vision of Bush and his supporters, he couldn't be lying, right? Another opinion on Iraq

It's pretty simple why they can't push this solution: since they didn't find WMDs, the excuse for war has been "we got rid of a ruthless dictator who killed his own people, and we restored democracy." If you install a dictator and have no democracy, then why did we invade the country?

By your logic, no matter what this administration does (or does not do), one can support them because the alternative is worse. What a sad state of affairs it is in this country....

Like Richio did, whenever FOX had an article that said WMDs had been found in IRaq, he (and FOX) would never post the articles that stated he and FOX were wrong. So, if it was FOX, they would simply give the original story and ignore the (after-the-fact) truth.

While I believe Bledsoe is a flawed QB (ability to make quick decisions), I do believe he is good enough, and this team is good enough, to post a winning record and possibly make the playoffs. In 1998, the team started out 0-3, then went on to post a 10-6 record and make the playoffs. While there is no Doug Flutie waiting in the wings, I do think the teams in general are similar. That Bills offense averaged just over 17 points per game (if memory serves), and had one of the best defenses in the league. I think this offense has the capability to do the same thing, and so does the defense. It's a long season, and just like everyone proclaimed we were a championship team after starting 2-0 last year, too many people are willing to jump ship too early this year.

I think if you substituted Bush in place of kerry above, you'd describe this board to a tee. Can you find the last post here that tried to describe Bush's record or vision? As for me, I'm not voting for Kerry, so I don't feel the need to defend his policies. What I see most often on this board though is blind support for Bush, regardless of what he does. My hope, is that people from both sides of the spectrum will vote for alternative candidates and send a message to both parties.

Great stuff over the weekend! - McCain says Bush not being upfront on Iraq. - Chaffee says he might not vote for Bush. - Lugar agrees with Biden that the Administration has created a mess in Iraq (though biden called their efforts "a damn joke"). - George Will calls the Admin, with regard to Iraq, "the gang that couldn't shoot - straight." - Hagel says "we're in deep trouble in Iraq." - CIA nominee Goss says Cheney stretched Iraq intelligence. But all is well at PPP "Neverland...."

Good questions. Maybe Clinton will answer them during the presidential debates...

The genesis of young George's intellectual curiosity. A nugget from the Kitty Kelly book: "But, as one of W's Yalie frat brothers tells Kelley, it's not the substance abuse in Bush's past that's disturbing, it's the "lack of substance ... Georgie, as we called him, had absolutely no intellectual curiosity about anything. He wasn't interested in ideas or in books or causes. He didn't travel; he didn't read the newspapers; he didn't watch the news; he didn't even go to the movies. How anyone got out of Yale without developing some interest in the world besides booze and sports stuns me." New Yorker writer Brendan Gill recalls roaming the Kennebunkport compound one night while staying there looking for a book to read - the only title he could find was The Fart Book."