<p>Some estimates on the financial impact of 9/11 run as high as $1 trillion. Another 9/11 or something worse would actually have been more devastating on the economy than the Iraq war. I’m not saying that an attack would have happened w/o Iraq but something to consider.</p>
<p>Bailey ,
What role did Iraq have with 9/11?
Afghanistan and Iraq are two different countries.</p>
<p>Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz does agree with you that current administration has had devastating impact on our daily life besides the Iraq war.
[The</a> Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com](<a href=“http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712]The”>The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair)</p>
<p>Guys guys.</p>
<p>This is straying. Just a tad. :)</p>
<p>everything is interconnected.
[Halliburton</a> 1st-qtr profit up 6 pct, outlook better - Forbes.com](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/04/21/2008-04-21T164417Z_01_N21213872_RTRIDST_0_HALLIBURTON-UPDATE-3.html]Halliburton”>http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/04/21/2008-04-21T164417Z_01_N21213872_RTRIDST_0_HALLIBURTON-UPDATE-3.html)</p>
<p>I’m one of those happy old people. The sun is out. The lakes are unfrozen. The temps are in the 70s. I have a wonderful retirement job and a greyhound. My wife and I are healthy and have great medical care. Now if my son would only get a real job and his script was produced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mr. Stiglitz conveniently ignores the dot.com bust of the late 90’s under Clinton’s watch. Also, that the economy was in a near recession when he left office in Jan 2001.</p>
<p>excellent observation Bailey. Many people don’t remember the spring of 2000 (Before Bush was ever elected) when Clinton and the SEC went after Microsoft. That took the economy already further down from where it was going.</p>
<p>Christcorp,</p>
<p>Are you honestly suggesting that the SEC going after Microsoft is a cause of the dot.com bust, rather than the simple fact that it was a bubble economy?</p>
<p>I find it incredibly hard to believe that prosecuting Microsoft for bad behavior is really a significant cause.</p>
<p>I didn’t say it was the cause of the .com bust. The microsoft dive in stock was just part of the economy taking a down turn. It happen to just be one of the more publicized moments. I have said many times that the economy goes through it’s cycles. Usually about every 7-8 years. I’ve said numerous times that you can blame or give credit to the president for the economy. My point was that if people want to believe stigllitz and believe that Bush is the cause of all our economic problems (Which there really isn’t any); then they have to say that Clinton had the same negative impact on the economy in 2000.</p>
<p>I’ve been investing for many years. Actually decades. I like the economy where it is. I like it when it goes up and then back down. if it didn’t we’d have uncontrollable inflation. Minor recessions but the economy back into check. Plus it’s great for my investments. If people want to complain about high prices for oil, food, etc… Then fight those that allow oil to be traded as a commodity instead of as a “Goods” like it use to be. Also; blame to republicans and democrats for supporting this B.S. garbage called “ETHANOL” and the subsidies. People are rioting and dieing all over the world due to starvation, and we’re burning food in our cars. Now THAT’S SCREWED UP. Plus, I love how each day more and more scientists are starting to comment that maybe this global warming thing isn’t what they thought. Unless you’re making millions off of it like Al Gore.</p>
<p>For one, the “cycle” in the form of the dot com boom was little more than a bubble of speculation. While there are growth and contraction periods, sound economic policy can do a lot for enhancing the growth periods and taking the bite off the contraction periods.</p>
<p>You cannot blame a President solely, but a President’s policies and direction can have a role in both short- and long-term prospects for the economy. Otherwise, we would probably find Presidents doing little in the arena of economic policy, as much of it isn’t glamorous high politics anyway. There is much to be done as POTUS when it comes to appointing secretaries, supporting, spearheading, or vetoing bills, and choosing to engage in or withhold from military use. </p>
<p>The Microsoft dive in stock was not, however, solely the result of the pop of the bubble at the time (though you cannot ever be sure what ever truly causes a stock price shift.) Stock prices are, of course, the result of supply and demand, and I think it’s safe to say that the stock price dive for MS during the monopoly proceedings was at least due in part to investor confidence dipping. Otherwise, why would a bunch of people be SELLING their shares in MS? Just to get liquid cash in an economy that was soon to be inflationary? Unless you’re suggesting that people took their money invested in MS and put it in something less volatile like t-bills, I don’t see what you mean.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Stiglitz does not say that “all” of the economy’s problems are Bush’s fault. No economist worth his weight in salt, and Stiglitz is certainly worth his weight, would be that myopic. However, to say that there are “no economic problems” seems to me to be “irrational exuberance” at absolute best. Many economists are warning of a severe contractionary period ahead of us, even to the point of a potential depression. Not 1929-style, of course, but I think you’d have a hard time telling the THOUSANDS laid off from Bear and Citi that there are no economic problems.</p>
<p>Seriously, folks … there are some posting here on this thread who need to get a clue about the way MOST people live in this country. I am NOT talking global standards here … in America, an income of $200,000 is NOT … I repeat, NOT … “middle” anything. I do not care how big your neighbor’s house is. I do not care how many trips they take. Just because you don’t seem to have as much in comparison does not make you somehow middle class. You are in the top few percent of wage earners in this country. Even HALF that is in the top wage earners in this country.</p>
<p>I live in a very “real” community. It has million dollar plus lake homes, nice expensive homes, regular homes, affordable homes, apartments, subsidized apartments, and trailer parks (including the kind that should not be lived in year round). I don’t make anywhere close to $200k per year, but I can absolutely guarantee you that … even though I don’t have everything I want … I am FAR, FAR better off than many, many people in my community.</p>
<p>Real people in this country live on $40,000 per year and less. Educated people live on $40,000 per year and less. The new jobs being created in our service economy pay much less than the manufacturing & tech oriented jobs that are going by the wayside. And it is a fact that those of you who think your $100k or $200k is middle class are wrong. To put it into terms CC’ers might understand: Your salary might not be HYP, but it’s still elite.</p>
<p>To be precise, $170k puts one in the top 3% of the U.S. population.</p>
<p>The more you have the more you feel entitled to. Some people feel that they’re entitled to food and an apartment to live in, some people feel that they’re entitled to a comfortable living with leisure money, a house, cars, and substantial retirement savings. That’s natural. But upper-middle and upper class people shouldn’t classify themselves as middle class :)</p>
<p>“And it is a fact that those of you who think your $100k or $200k is middle class are wrong.”</p>
<p>I think it’s in the eye of the beholder. </p>
<p>I’m upper middle class. I know that I’m not middle class because my family does not strain to make ends meet, but I know that I’m not rich because my friends who are rich are undeniably rich. For instance, I have a house with a garden–we built it with our own hands. My friends have mansions complete with pool houses and ice rinks. I have a 2004 Camry, but I share it with my stepfather who uses it to save gas mileage for commuting. My friends have 2004 BMWs and Mercedes for their personal use. I am certainly not middle class, but I’m definitely not upper class. I’m in between.</p>
<p>You’re upper-middle class. ^^ And it probably feels more middle than upper to you because of your environment. I’m sure that if I didn’t live in suburbia I’d feel a lot more affluent than I do. But I think it is presumptuous of people who earn 100k-200k to label themselves as middle class with all the ‘common people’ struggles that that implies, because they really aren’t and there are people who actually are…</p>
<p>Here’s another thing: in the United States, there is no such thing as “upper class.” While Donald Trump is rich, nobody would think of him as “upper class.” Ditto for Sam Walton, Bill Gates, etc. I suggest that if we were talking about middle income, rather than “class,” the definition would be much easier to agree on.</p>
<p>Hunt,</p>
<p>I don’t know that I agree with you. I think some of the so-called “WASP-elite” in the Northeast could be considered upper-class in a way.</p>
<p>Applause, Kelsmom! Well-put!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or at least they would like to think so.</p>
<p>It always surprises me the number of people I know who live in large homes, drive fancy cars, take fancy vacations and can at most spend $2K for their kid’s education and complain about it.</p>