<p>Even the die hard conservatives are turning on Bush. What took them so long? (Oh, the cognitive dissonance must be killing them.)</p>
<p><a href=“Random House | Page not found”>Random House | Page not found;
<p>
</p>
<p>Most economists think the economy is doing pretty well and that the deficits are not out of bounds for our GNP. Clinton would have loved to add some new programs but was blocked by the Congress. If we need more taxes a little eventually to allow the senior citizens to buy their meds–so be it. Many of us have enjoyed some nice cuts and a good income lately.</p>
<p>did anyone read the news today about income not keeping up with inflation</p>
<p>guess not</p>
<p>many? oh yeah, a few have enjoyed the benefits while many more suffer and get laid off and are hungry, but its a good thing that some have it so much better</p>
<p>once again, so long as you are okay, nobody else matters</p>
<p>nice concervative compassion</p>
<p>I listened to the NPR interview of this man yesterday afternoon on the internet. I had to cut it short due to a phone call, but his comments on the Clinton Presidency concerning its fiscal responsibility as opposed to what is going on now in the eyes of conservatives is telling. I have heard it from my very conservative dad as well. So this is not the first time.</p>
<p>He really spoke out against the new prescription program that he says will cost everyone more money in the long run and drive prices up. He said it was not well conceived.</p>
<p>I wonder how much of this book focuses on economic policies, versus other anti-conservative measures this government engages in, such as expanding the size of federal government, usurping states’ rights, infiltrating people’s lives with spying (and the Patriot Act), etc. And, then of course, there is the question of “compassionate conservatism”…</p>
<p>I just can’t figure out why the true conservatives aren’t furious. (Oh, wait a minute, what’s that rumbling I hear on Capitol Hill?)</p>
<p>The book was apparently written by an economist so his focus was economics.</p>
<p>Energy prices up, real estate taxes up, interest rates up for those borrowing (not for those investing), school taxes after Katrina up to cover the cost of the refugees, food costs up, building and house repair costs up post hurricane season, thousands upon thousands of auto workers entering the ranks of the unemployed… Not a pretty picture to me. Too bad our income isn’t keeping up. Guess we’re just not among the lucky few.</p>
<p>I often ask my most conservative friends if they were better off financially with Clinton, and without fail, they tell me they were.</p>
<p>I guess they forgot that bath they took in the stock market and only remember the runup in stocks. Total wealth is up markedly since 2000. Income is only one slice of wealth-building and the goal is to build net wealth. The hurricane hurt but we have absorbed it pretty well. Many predicted a downturn and that never happened.</p>
<p>Things seemed better under Clinton because businesses were having a huge party with other people’s money. Then they took away the punch bowl.</p>
<p>who has absorbed it pretty well? the people living in tents? the people with no homes, no jobs, no schools, who lost everything</p>
<p>i will be sure and tell them they have been absorbed so you can make more money</p>
<p>Its a good thing that people can buy all the medication they need- not
Its a good thing that elderly don’t have to decide between heat and food-not
Its a good thing that kids can get cheap loans for school- not so much
its a good thing people still have their retirement money- not so much
Its a good thing people havent’ been laid off in droves- not
Its a good thing that airlines aren’tin bankrupcties again- not
Its a good thing that energy prices are kept in check in a time of WAR-not</p>
<p>Wleath building- what percentage of the population is better off now then they were 4 years ago?</p>
<p>About the 67 percent that are homeowners.</p>
<p>About the homeowners? Some of us are doing great as homeowners - particularly if we joined the party years ago. There’s nothing like an investment where you’re renting to a reliable tenant (yourself) and are able to leverage your investment at good rates. </p>
<p>But to stay On Topic I expect there will be a lot of “former” homeowners in the next few years as the payments on adjustable rate mortgages increase, reflecting the impact of the growing national debt on the supply and demand for borrowed funds, and property values stagnate and even decline accordingly. That’s how the economy “handles” massive unnecessary debt run up by a government that’s too busy pandering to rich constituents to set tax rates at a level adequate to balance the budget. Sure the economy’s doing OK now - what would you expect to happen in the short run when the biggest budget in the country is borrowing and spending like a drunken sailor? And like Keynes said, “In the long run, we’ll all be dead.” </p>
<p>Of course, our kids won’t be. But thanks for asking.</p>
<p>Our economist expects long-term rates to actually soften a bit this year so those with ARM’s should look at a re-fi–especially if they bought over a year ago and have nice equity now which will get them the lower rates.<br>
Money is flowing like water all over the globe and the US is still considered a safe haven. The doom and gloomers will be disappointed.</p>
<p>Reagan was no slouch when it came to spending. GWB believes in trickle down economy where as GHB didn’t. Its going to be interesting in 2- 3years.</p>
<p>The general failure of every socialist government has proven that trickle-up works worse than trickle-down. Not that ours is perfect–it’s just better than the alternatives.</p>
<p>Perhaps the “socialist” governments were more of a power click than a true socialist society. Perhaps a true free market system is what we are both looking for rather than labels.</p>