Sounds like your dad and I think alike on this one. Although it's still a long time until November.

Given the fact that my professors wrote the books you glanced at and nobel prize laureates wrote my recommendations, I would shutup h-iz-o.

-Rudey

Yes, we know, yes Rudey you are indeed the smartest of the smart. And we all have observed that you are so smart that you have to bring up just how astoundingly smart you are and how amazing your university is in.... well just about every thread you post in where your views are even semi-challenged. (also, just as an aside, we've all had professors who have written books and have won awards. Thats what tenured professors do. Publish their work. Win awards. Bring in funding and a distinguished reputation for the university.)

I think you're nice Rudey, I really really do, but can we please save it? This is a thread about the election. Can we ride that topic out?

As for the earlier post, US and global are indeed tied together, but until the global market starts to drive domestic revenues and employment in the US economy in a significant way, then I am not particularly concerned with how the US deficit is boosting the economies of other nations. I would like to see the federal government doing what it is supposed to do - collecting taxes and in turn using those funds to drive the economy by providing employment and jobs in both the public and private sectors.

I am also concerned with the fact that the budget deficit is so severe that there is no money to fund programs that I believe are critical to the nation. That includes funding for schools, public service programs, social security, etc. I am particularly disheartened by Bush no longer funding social service type organizations, instead requesting that religious and faith based organizations take over. I think it's wonderful when religious organizations step in and help in the community, but there is no reason that the government should be relying on them because it would rather spend it's money elsewhere.

Bush is pushing for another tax cut because many people don't realize how much it impacts the economy in a negative way. He's doing it for popularity, and that really annoys me.

My professors write books too. We just spend our money on letting poor middle-class kids like me go here on a scholarship instead of hiring Nobel Prize laureates. :D

a) You brought up how smart I am. If you're gonna ride my nuts, let's not mix facts.

b) In terms of Economics, my school is untouchable. I don't feel like ripping on Syracuse because you seem nice...just misguided.

c) Honestly I would open up some of the simple Economics books again if I were you because you're not making sense. We are tied to the world. Our deficit isn't just better for them, it's helping us. This is all very simple macro. Our growth, our job development and more right now is being fueled by the deficit.

d) You are trying to tie in a million issues into this and pass it off as Economics. You don't like faith based spending - fine. Don't try and turn it into an economic issue.

-Rudey

Our nobel prize laureates win the prize for work they performed a long time ago; until then they usually don't have a ton of money. And Chicago Economics is distinct. It is a whole world unto itself that no undergrad or grad program resembles in the world.

-Rudey
--And you are not poor retardo

Quote - last time I checked, this is a thread about why we're voting for John Kerry. I never said my dislike for faith based programming was "economics" - I said I didn't like that the budget deficit has gotten so severe that as a result, money isn't being allocated where it needs to be, and so Bush is pushing off the "less important" social programs onto someone else's plate so he can try to profit off of other ventures.

And if you're thinking our deficit is making life better here and developing jobs, you're wrong. As of March 2004, 35 of the 50 states have yet to recover the jobs lost since the recession began in March of 2001. This recession continues to have the greatest sustained job losses since the Great Depression. It would be one thing if we were in a real war on a large scale, but we're not. Because the budget is now so tight, funding for non-security discretionary spending (which includes information technology, domestic construction, education, environmental support, etc) has been almost completely eliminated. The only people making money are defense contractors or other contractors who are willing to go abroad to Afghanistan and Iraq, and given the danger, many contractors are no longer willing to do so.

Bush's tax cut package, which was supposed to create roughly 2,700,000 jobs once it was passed, has been a miserable failure, creating only about 700,000 jobs (and checking my Syracuse math, that's a shortfall of 2,000,000 jobs, give or take :) )

Bush's economic policies SUCK. Domestically, we have seen no significant benefit from this absolutely enormous budget deficit.

If you want to keep going, we can continue on to "Reaganomics in the GW Bush administration" and why neoconservative economic policy based on the idea of "Greed is Good" doesn't work. Chicago is good, but Syracuse also has a distinguished school of public affairs and I did manage to pick up a thing or two.

Economically none of what you said is right. A bubble burst - when a bubble is created there are jobs being held and money being made that shouldn't be. The system corrected itself.

I'm sorry but this puts me in a position of basically sitting here and going through a lot of material just to try and educate you.

The fact is that the Economy is largely what determines elections. The economy is also generally not controlled by presidents. Dole had a hard time convincing the country that Clinton's economic measures were bad and Kerry is having an incredibly difficult time doing the same with Bush.

-Rudey

I had lunch with a Nobel Prize winner for Economics in December. Am I smart now? :p

Actually, I learned about the role the economy plays in democracies.

If you would refer back to my original post, I did say that I do have an understanding of the cyclical nature of the economy. And yes, I do know that the economy is generally what determines elections - "It's the economy, stupid."

However, that being said, there are policies that, depending on the political stance of the President, take a higher priority. For Democrats, it's raising taxes and increasing the role of the government in the activities of it's constituents. For Republicans, it's generally the opposite - cut taxes and decrease regulations for large industries.

For Bush, those policies are identical almost Ronald Reagan's.
They believe that the state cannot improve the lot of the disadvantaged poor by education and welfare programs financed through taxation. Their solution is to massively to decrease the taxation and regulation of corporations and of the rich, replacing progressive taxation wherever possible with low flat rates. The role of the state in the provision of education and welfare is reduced and replaced as much as possible by private charity.

The idea is that leaving matters to "market forces" releases the constraints on entrepreneurs and generates new wealth, the benefits of which "trickle down" to the poor and improve their lot. Which of course, does not really work.

You dont need to educate me. I'm doing fine on my own.

And yes, you are brilliant. :D

Do you have any input on this, based on what you learned?

tell me where i'm wrong. honestly.

What i've written can be validated by independent and accredited sources. reaganomics and "trickle down" monetary policies have been well documented, and the striking similarities between the Reagan and Bush administrations have also been well documented.

And anyway, back to the original point. Bush's economic policies are what they are, and I dont agree with them, which is why I and many others are voting for Kerry.

http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/p...D/8/prmID/1116

If you really want to read some interesting information about strategies to promote democracy, you can download the pdf on this page. The Carnegie Council has many interesting conferences, and I feel fortunate to have attended a few of them. This is the meeting where I met the Nobel Prize winner for Economics and the former President of Ireland.

I brought up Reaganomics because YOU brought up economic policy in elections. Which drives back to the original point of this thread, which is, once again, why i'm voting for John Kerry. And the reason is because Bush's economic policies, which are reminiscient of the Reagan era, DONT WORK. Just because Reagan pulled back his tax cuts doesn't make the theory behind the general policies very similar. If you'd stop being so snippy and actually read what I posted, you might see the similarities.

I'm not sure if you're calling me a hick, or what? I'm not.

As for credible sources, you can start with the Economic Policy Institute. Here's the website- www.epinet.org. It's nonpartisan, so don't worry, it's not a bunch of democrats/people who don't know what they're talking about bashing on Republicans either. You'll find extensive documentation, in the form of factual information, on the failure of the Bush tax cuts, in addition to accurate and up to date economic snapshots and indicators.

As for Non-Discretionary spending, you can also find additional documentation on that topic in the most recent issue of the Federal Reserve Economic Review.

There can be other credible sources here besides you Rudey. There are other people in this world that, despite not having gone to Chicago, might actually be pretty smart and be able to put together some reasonable research that supports something OTHER than what you believe.

By the way, I did also quote the Federal Reserve Economic Review. Which, in case you missed out on that in econ class, is a pretty important and pretty credible source. Seeing as how the Federal Reserve does do that whole "monetary policy" thing for THE ENTIRE NATION.