Recession Talk

[Tigermike 3,053]

He's had almost 8 years. You are damn straight I expect him to have made more progress than he has. For the record and as you know, this problem existed long before oil was $100/barrell. The problem is not the prices - the problem is we have a finite source that we have to import from hostile nations. Further, it is not and has never been clean energy. If it makes you feel any better, I'll have the same expectations for the next President as I had for this one.

OH...and I'm all about compromising. But I have yet to see anything that proves building more refineries or drilling here at home is anything more than a short-term fix.

How many of these are hostile?

Where the U.S. gets it's oil.

So you want to ween us off foreign oil but see domestic drilling and new refineries as a short term fix. If the U.S. was taping and producing enough oil domestically to meet it's needs all that oil from else where would have to sell else where.

Thanks to the dems as pushed by their "green" lobbyist the U.S. Geological Survey service can't even look for deposits off the coast of Wash, Oregon & California. Nor most all of the Eastern seaboard & Florida.

[AUTiger1 0]

No, the stock market is not the barometer I use to define economic prosperity. Clinton's record in the 90s (can't believe I'm having to defend him):

- 100+ months of economic expansion

- moving from deficit to surplus

- paid off over 350 Billion of National Debt

- over 22 Million new jobs (yes, that's Millions)

- 5 consective years of real growth wage

- Average household income broke 40k for first time in history

- Unemployment reached a low of 3.9%, remained below 5% for 40+ months, and unemployment for african americans and hispanics fell to the lowest levels ever recorded

- Highest home ownership rate in history (67.2% in 2000)

- Lowest poverty rate in 25 years

And I could go on and on without mentioning the stock market. It's not about benefitting the rich - it's about benefitting every one. Look, no one likes paying any more taxes than necessary but I just don't think trickle-down economics works - maybe we just have a difference in opinion.

Green jobs are not pie in the sky. If we start making fuels from products grown in the midwest or from other emerging technologies, you just wait and see how many jobs we could create. It takes investment and leadership - some thing we obviously have not seen from this administration.

I am no economic guru by any means. The Clinton years were pretty good economic wise (that will be the only nice thing I will ever say about him), but the economy started to slip at the end of his term. I agree with BamaGrad, the Bush years have been great as far as I am concerned. But once again at the end of his 8 years it is starting to slip. Did Reagan not get a horrible economy to deal with? Then with Bush Sr, did not start to crumble after his only term and start to slide into a recession? Seems to me that no matter what, we are going to have a slight downturn or a recession in the economy every 8 to 12 years. Just curious to know if anyone else sees the same pattern?

To comment on what I have highlighted in bold. Screw a surplus, where does the money that the government operates on come from? Tax Dollars. Since they have more than they need, they need to send mine back to me. 40K is good money here in Alabama but it's nothing in Cali. I have a co-worker that left H'ville to go to San Jose making 85K in hopes of moving back to H'ville in a few years and get the same kind of salary, but he is not making anymore, in the sense that he is saving less money than he was before b/c the cost of living is way high out there, than he was when he lived here making $48K. Did Reagan's policy of trickle down economics not lead to the biggest economy boom that this country had ever seen up to that point in time? How can you say it doesn't work? Just curious? Now I love your idea of making fuel products the corn grown in the midwest, but does anyone realize how much fuel we use in this country? Where in the heck would we grow all the corn needed to produce ethanol, much less make it affordable for people like me who loves to eat corn be able to buy it in the supermarket and it not cost me my paycheck (being sarcastic)?

I for one would love to see us build some more refineries and get the oil that we have sitting on docks into use. I would also love to see us build more Nuclear Power Plants. They produce cheap and clean power and are pretty safe. (Unless you are the Russians trying to showoff) We could replace the Coal Burning Plants that we have, which would be better on the environment, train those workers to work in the Nuclear Plants (I know people that work in both and you have to be reasonably intelligent to work in either one) and especially up north where people use millions to billions of gallons of petroleum to heat their homes, when we could be providing them cheap energy to power there homes.

[RunInRed 16,487]

The conservative answer to our energy problem: drill drill drill Why are you guys so against investing in alternative energies so we can eliminate the whole oil argument all together?

[RunInRed 16,487]

We have a huge National Debt. Do you have any idea how much of the national budget is spent on interest expense alone each year? Eventually, a surplus is necessary to pay off all this spending we've been doing. Same concept as your personal credit card (for all you personal responsibility guys in here)...if you charge it, you eventually have to pay for it.

As for the 40k - that is an average income. If you looked at average incomes across the U.S. you'd be surprised how little some live off of. Keep in mind this is an average - obviously it takes more to live in major cities. I believe the average income in Alabama is around 30-35k. Some retirees/disabled live on nothing more than their social security check.

[AUTiger1 0]

The conservative answer to our energy problem: drill drill drill Why are you guys so against investing in alternative energies so we can eliminate the whole oil argument all together?

I am not against investing in alternative fuel sources. But what are we to do in the meantime? It will take years for us to get to the point where we are no longer dependent on oil. Eventually I would love for us to be to the point where we can tell OPEC to stick it in their ear, but fact is we are not there and we are not even close to being there. Apparently you did not read where I said I loved the idea of using ethanol from the corn grown in the midwest. All I am saying is as long as we can produce enough and it doesn't disrupt the food supply then I am a supporter of it. Once again I state that I think Nuclear Power is the way to go. For the Bedwetting, bleeding heart enviro nut jobs out there, it is cleaner, gets rid of the emissions that Coal Power Plants produce, and it is cheap to produce, but you can't simply slap them up overnight either.

[BamaGrad03 0]

He's had almost 8 years. You are damn straight I expect him to have made more progress than he has. For the record and as you know, this problem existed long before oil was $100/barrell. The problem is not the prices - the problem is we have a finite source that we have to import from hostile nations. Further, it is not and has never been clean energy. If it makes you feel any better, I'll have the same expectations for the next President as I had for this one.

No...as it pertains to the ECONOMY it's only been a problem for about 3-4 years. You want to go off on a tangent about importing oil from some country who wants to kill us...being a problem. Yeah its a problem, but not as it pertains to the economy.

To blame Bush for $100 barrel oil is a joke.

[RunInRed 16,487]

He's had almost 8 years. You are damn straight I expect him to have made more progress than he has. For the record and as you know, this problem existed long before oil was $100/barrell. The problem is not the prices - the problem is we have a finite source that we have to import from hostile nations. Further, it is not and has never been clean energy. If it makes you feel any better, I'll have the same expectations for the next President as I had for this one.

No...as it pertains to the ECONOMY it's only been a problem for about 3-4 years. You want to go off on a tangent about importing oil from some country who wants to kill us...being a problem. Yeah its a problem, but not as it pertains to the economy.

To blame Bush for $100 barrel oil is a joke.

This is where we have the disconnect:

I think the problem is not just the fact that crude oil is $100/barrell. The same problem would exist if we were at $20/barrell.....

Now, in regards to our current economy, yes the price is acting like a tax on everybody and everything...but the root of the problem is much more macro and will take significant investments to fix.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think the problem is not just the fact that crude oil is $100/barrell. The same problem would exist if we were at $20/barrell.....

To argue that would suggest that gas prices were at the forefront of economic woes back in 99 when you could get 87 octane for 94 cents a gallon.

[AuburnChopper1 0]

Dang BG, as far as politics go, you and I are on the same page. Go figure. Great job!

Amazing what you can do when you have "great material and actual facts" to work with.

Keep up the good work here!

[BamaGrad03 0]

Dang BG, as far as politics go, you and I are on the same page. Go figure. Great job!

Amazing what you can do when you have "great material and actual facts" to work with.

Keep up the good work here!

Either way, I'm still arguin with Auburn folks...so you know I'm happy.

[GaCoach 0]

Here's my two cents.

Causes for the increase in oil prices. NO, that means zero, new refineries in over 35 years and an increase in demand by not only China but also India. It make dems feel better to blame Bush than to accept FACTS.

Back on the original topic. The economy. We are not in a recession. An economic slow down, yes, but to be in a recession the economy has regress or shrink for six straight months. Our economy is NOT shrinking.

Lastly, if you want to fix our economy, then let's pass the FairTax!

[arnaldoabru 11]

Not according to Warren Buffett

[GaCoach 0]

Not according to Warren Buffett

I guess if Warren Buffett says it then it must be the gospel.

Well here's the definition of 'recession' per InvestorWords.com

recession

Definition

A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

Now, if you can show where our economy has fit this definition, then I'll recant my argument.

[TigerHeat 9]

Again, if you are willing to give Bush credit for "5 great years" (collective yawn - great years for who - the rich and well connected?) then you also have to be willing to blame him for the current situation we are in now.

The rich and the well connected? What the hell are you talking about? Again, this is where ignorant and ill researched democratic regurge comes into play. You heard something at the DNC or during the democratic debates, and you just vomit it back up...on cue...without any original idea of your own. Am I rich and well connected? NO. Have I enjoyed the last five years of having a good job, not paying as much in taxes, seeing my 401k/stocks/mutual funds increase year after year? Yep, sure have. But the ol' fallback kneejerk retort from the dems is to just say "look the only people who are benefitting from this ALL TIME LOW JOBLESS RATE AND ALL TIME HIGH DOW AND NASDAQ...are people who own personal jets and live in Trump Tower." But that is W-R-O-N-G. That is just playing on the fact that people don't do any research for themselves. Just saying "the rich and well connected" doesn't make it so...it makes you a pawn for repitition of a party line. Be original.

His spending is out of control, he constantly pushes tax cuts at a time of war that we can't afford, and his administration did nothing to crack down on predatory lending, temper interest rates that were kept too low for too long, or invest in anything but in an ill-advised war. He was too hell bent on Iraq and his great privitization of Social Security plan-remember that wonderful campaign promise?

Yes, he has a problem with spending. Yes, he overstreched us with Iraq. But that isn't the argument here. The argument is HAS THE ECONOMY BEEN GOOD FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS...and you keep coming up with this other crap. What does his privitization of Social Security have to do with the dow hitting an all time high? What does it have to do with jobless rate far better than any time during Clinton's tenure?

The predatory lending thing is funny to me. It basically spells out what it means to be a democrat:remove personal responsibility. 5/1 arms are considered "predatory" if banks give them to people who aren't that great off financially. But the people in financial duress UNDERSTAND that. They have to READ and SIGN the contract. They get to live in a house for 5 years that they didn't have to pay a normal price for...and all that time not saving for when the real payment comes. Also, the concept of the high risk lending market weighing heavily on the economy and stock market has emerged in the last 6 months. There were a FEW fringe people saying it would be a problem a couple of years ago...but the vast majority of wall street was caught by surprise. Yet, you expect the President to be clairvoyant and enact policy before the thousands of people on wall street even know it's a problem...that's fair.

cap/fine carbon emissions

Does nothing for the economy, stay on topic.

mandate 50mpg on all new autos

An UNREASONABLE policy to enforce and won't happen during the next president's tenure either. (but hey, let's blame bush for not doing it...even though the AMERICAN PEOPLE don't want it)

significantly invest in clean energy (biofuels, hybrids

This administration has invested more money in clean energy than any in history. (but hey, it's easy to say...since he didn't invest enough, oil prices are high)

invest in green jobs

Does nothing for the economy

require renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal),

For cars? That's practical.

The examples you sighted are a drop in the bucket of what it's going to take to ween us off of oil

A drop in the bucket, maybe. But more than any other administration in HISTORY.

And you act like your small solutions would be this magic wand and oil would all of the sudden be $20 a barrel. The topic is THE CURRENT ECONOMY. Not foreign or domestic policy. Not whether or not we require all people to hug a tree and punch an SUV owner at least once a week. Tell you what, if Obama becomes the next president, and we aren't required by law to drive cars getting 50mpg or better...you need to come here and apologize for riding the hyperbole express.

Still haven't answered my question...if you want to blame Bush for the last 6 months, will you give him credit for the previous 5 years?

never thought i'd say this....but War Damn BG! You are on it like Donkey Kong....

[arnaldoabru 11]

Not according to Warren Buffett

I guess if Warren Buffett says it then it must be the gospel.

Well here's the definition of 'recession' per InvestorWords.com

recession

Definition

A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

Now, if you can show where our economy has fit this definition, then I'll recant my argument.

The last time I checked InvestorWords wasn't a Billionaire

[GaCoach 0]

Not according to Warren Buffett

I guess if Warren Buffett says it then it must be the gospel.

Well here's the definition of 'recession' per InvestorWords.com

recession

Definition

A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

Now, if you can show where our economy has fit this definition, then I'll recant my argument.

The last time I checked InvestorWords wasn't a Billionaire

Well, since that was the best you could come back with, I'll show you the facts because there's no secret the Buffett is 'bed-wetting' lib. This comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce web-site. Economic slowdown, yes, but positive numbers are hardly a recession.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Current Numbers:

4th quarter 2007: +0.6 percent

3rd quarter 2007: +4.9 percent

[arnaldoabru 11]

Not according to Warren Buffett

I guess if Warren Buffett says it then it must be the gospel.

Well here's the definition of 'recession' per InvestorWords.com

recession

Definition

A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

Now, if you can show where our economy has fit this definition, then I'll recant my argument.

The last time I checked InvestorWords wasn't a Billionaire

Well, since that was the best you could come back with, I'll show you the facts because there's no secret the Buffett is 'bed-wetting' lib. This comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce web-site. Economic slowdown, yes, but positive numbers are hardly a recession.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Current Numbers:

4th quarter 2007: +0.6 percent

3rd quarter 2007: +4.9 percent

Why is it that anyone who disagrees is a "be wettin libbie" There are also plenty of experts out there who say we are in fact in a recession.

You left out 'RICH" bed wettin libbie

[GaCoach 0]

Not according to Warren Buffett

I guess if Warren Buffett says it then it must be the gospel.

Well here's the definition of 'recession' per InvestorWords.com

recession

Definition

A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

Now, if you can show where our economy has fit this definition, then I'll recant my argument.

The last time I checked InvestorWords wasn't a Billionaire

Well, since that was the best you could come back with, I'll show you the facts because there's no secret the Buffett is 'bed-wetting' lib. This comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce web-site. Economic slowdown, yes, but positive numbers are hardly a recession.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Current Numbers:

4th quarter 2007: +0.6 percent

3rd quarter 2007: +4.9 percent

Why is it that anyone who disagrees is a "be wettin libbie" There are also plenty of experts out there who say we are in fact in a recession.

You left out 'RICH" bed wettin libbie

The term is being mis-used just like racism gets mis-used, and that our country is a democracy. The fact remains, our economy is in a slowdown, not a recession, and you've brought no facts to prove otherwise.

[Tigermike 3,053]

There are also plenty of experts out there who say we are in fact in a recession.

Provide that info. You are good at slinging out BS and never backing it up. The rules of the board are no link, no post. So when you make a statement like that back it up with names and links.

[MDM4AU 336]

Not according to Warren Buffett

I guess if Warren Buffett says it then it must be the gospel.

Well here's the definition of 'recession' per InvestorWords.com

recession

Definition

A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

Now, if you can show where our economy has fit this definition, then I'll recant my argument.

The last time I checked InvestorWords wasn't a Billionaire

That has to be one of the dumbest replies I have ever seen.

[TigerHeat 9]

Not according to Warren Buffett

I guess if Warren Buffett says it then it must be the gospel.

Well here's the definition of 'recession' per InvestorWords.com

recession

Definition

A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

Now, if you can show where our economy has fit this definition, then I'll recant my argument.

The last time I checked InvestorWords wasn't a Billionaire

That has to be one of the dumbest replies I have ever seen.

His billionaire says we are in the worst economic disaster since Hiroshima. My billionaire says the holocaust is a work of fiction. But so does my guy at the convenience store, and he's REALLY up on world history, economics, and politics.

[CCTAU 3,346]

Sometimes I wonder if any of these tree-hugging bunny-loving libruls have a clue what it is to actually have money invested and to have watched it grow nicely over the last few years.

But then again, I guess they are either a) too young to invest don't make enough to invest (Bush's fault) or c) It doesn't matter cause achmed Obama will take care of us.

The end result is that they don't have a clue. Most of what they say is just regurgitated bull**** from the left.

Intelligent and fact base arguments have been given by the economically feasible (rich guys to you) folks on this board, and the only thing you libruls can come up with is the same stuff...

BUSH BAD..BUSH NO LOVE TREES...BUSH MAKE OIL SPENSIVE CAUSE HE BIG OIL MAN...BUSH NO CREATE CAR RUN OFF ZUCHINI CAUSE HE RICH OIL MAN...BUSH NO USE UP OIL RESERVE TO HELP PEOPLE EAT...BUSH BAAAAADD!

We've been hearing it for years and the left comes up with NOTHING else.

RIR you must be like 12 years old with some of the arguments you have with the economy and with the pie-in-the-sky ideas you have on how being green will save us. Sad.

Instead of "reading" up on things, just wait till you actually have earned a few bucks and are at the point in your life where your personal investments in your personal future are to a point where you too do not feel like all of your hard work should be managed, stolen, or entrusted to our government.

Your misinformed argument for e85 alone showed your ignorance. When you finally see achemd for who he is (empty), it will be a sad day for you.

And remember BUSH BAD...BUSH BAD...BUSH BAD....

So long as you and achmed focus on that, the rest of us will remember that Bush is not running.

[arnaldoabru 11]

My personal investments are actually quite large.

[TigerHeat 9]

My personal investments are actually quite large.

On the interwebs everybody has an eight-figure stock portfolio.

[arnaldoabru 11]

"American workers have experienced low rates of real wage growth for more than 20 years"

"Significant increases in the amount of money America spends on oil(1973,1979,1990,2000) were followed by a recession." Energy Bulletin

"Fed's cut will not be able to avert all of the weakness in the economy that may be in the train for the next several months." Donald Koln Fed Vice Chair

"there is somethingfoing on out there that isn't good.I am concerned about the economy.It is looking pretty weak to me" Robert Brusca Chief economist Fact @Opinion Economics

"U S house prices are falling at an annual rate ofnearly 4%-an event not seen since the Great Depression-an the downward trend is accelerating" WSJ

"the credit crunch is a clear signal of a move closer to recession" WSJ