Well, it seems to depend of which Englishman that you are talking to.

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxbill00.html

Stagflation was under Carter, and the crash of 87 had nothing to do with Congress.



The House controls spending, Period. The Senate cannot introduce any spending at all. Reagan's tax cut doubled revenues during the 1980s, but the Democrats, who controlled the House through both his two terms, spent $1.67 for every new dollar he brought in.


True. Which Party wants to cut spending?

The Republicans, that's who.


4.5% is sensible during war. We are at war.

$100 billion is the cost of Iraq only. The real cost of the war on terror is far higher.

Well, it changed in 1974, and I think everyone is used to it now. I don't ever hear anyone say billion meaning million million, but then I don't like talking to old people

Stagflation began before Carter. The crash of 87 was to do with an overheating economy, because the government was borrowing when it should have been paying off its debts.

The Senate can, I take it, block spending? Yes?

I don't care what they want to do, they need to do it. I'm not pretending that the Democrats are any better, but I am saying that pointing fingers and saying 'oh, well we're not as bad as them' tends to have no discernable effect on economies.

4.5% is not sensible during this war. No one thinks so. Go read the Financial Times online, for instance. It's credible and right wing, and like discussing this sort of thing.

Carter had inflation in the double digits. The Crash of 87 had more to do with computerized selling than anything else.


The Senate can vote up or down on spending.


The Democrats are far worse, not better.


Iread the Times. Spending is too high, as are taxes. George Bush has a plan to cut both next year, thank God.

George Bush has a plan to do everything. Why? Because it's election season. If his slogan was "I plan to do nothing," then he probably wouldn't win. I'm sure Kerry has plans of his own, for the same reason.

And I think you may like this book, if you haven't read it already:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...86460?v=glance

Judging by that first headline, Bush is dogging Clinton's steps.

Gods this place is boring - I'll just let you get back to it, shall I?

Yep. Kerry plans on raising everyone's taxes, destroying the economy, setting all the terrorists free, and turning America over to the UN.

Yes, he did, but the problems began under Nixon. Also, whether or not it was Carter or Nixon that you want to blame doesn't actually matter. It was fiscal mismanagement, which is what i am protesting against.

1987 had some local causes, but was set up by a period of exuberant stock market growth encouraged by an overheating economy and partially triggered by the announcement of a large budget deficit:

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/oct97jj.html
http://www.1929stockmarketcrash.com/...-of-1987.shtml

There are rarely single and simple causes for these things, but the economic conditions were setting up trouble.

Maybe they could have voted them down then? Or perhaps Reagan might have been more conservative with his tax cuts? They were effective, and 7% growth is very nice, but you don't actually need it. It causes problems actually, i.e. overheating.

Who said they were better? It still doesn't matter though, because juvenile name calling does not benefit economies.

We'll see.

Yes, that is exactly what he plans on doing. His specific goal is to do terrible things to his own country, because he secretly hates, and is only trying to become president so he can kill us all and roll around in our fucking ashes.

If you think you sound intelligent, think again. I have no quarrel wigh you, but rethink your words. He doesn't plan on doing any of that; it's just what you think he's going to do. The day a guy whose slogan is "Let's Destroy the Economy!" even makes it past the primaries, I'll pay you 20 bucks.

He has a 30 year record of trying to destroy the CIA, FBI, and the Armed Forces. He's on record as wanting to raises taxes on all taxpayers.

Do you have to have somebody draw you a picture?

Well, "Let's raise taxes" is liberal-speak for that, so it's already happened.

Not nearly as candidly as you expressed it, of course.

If he can't cut spending then he's going to have to raise taxes if he doesn't want the economy severely damaged long-term. It won't destroy the economy. It might cool it down, but that wouldn't be terrible. Gordon Brown in the UK is actually deliberately beginning to do exactly that. Having a large debt is terrible though, because servicing debt is just money pissed away every year, and it will take a long time to rectify these deficits.

High taxes + high spending = endless stagnation. The US spent over a decade stalled in just that state, in the 1970s.

Deficits are not great, but they're preferable to suffocating tax rates.

The problem is that debt simply means that taxes will have to be higher in the future than they otherwise would be in order to pay for them, so you don't really win. I think that cutting spending would be the best option, but Bush shows himself to be both unable and uninterested in doing so.

Well let me ask you something--ARTY.

Just what is the unemployment rate in England?

My thought is that it would be both simpler and more rewarding if you saved your financial advice for Tony Blair. :butt:

You increase economic activity?
My spending has remained the exact same for the past 10 years, if not have changed to one wherein I don't spend as often.

I know many people who have mainly remained exactly the same in their spending activities.

The fact is that you believe that some tax-cut will automatically make everyone jump up and down with joy, and run out and buy a new car.

It's not like that. People have bills they must pay, and with those bills is responsibility not to waste their money non-stop on items that would normally be useful for them.
A tax-cut does not change their responsibilites. A tax-cut does not alleviate them of the bills that they must pay.

Now a "Bill-cut" would..but I highly doubt anyone would want that since nobody would make any money

Ha ha ha! It's 4.9% - lower than yours. Perhaps if you do a quick check of these things before you shoot your mouth off then you won't look so stupid next time.

http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/unemployment.htm

In any case, I don't run our economy. There's an idea though...