If this keeps up, I will be voting for the dark side

  • News
  • Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Voting
In summary, the U.S. economy grew at a slower rate than previously thought in the first quarter of 2004, with inflation also higher than expected. The government has been revising its numbers for various aspects of the economy, and there is speculation that they are trying to make themselves look good. There is also discussion about the impact of the economy on the upcoming election, with some individuals saying that if the economy does not improve, they will not be voting for the current administration. There is also talk about potential candidates for the upcoming election and their views on the economy.
  • #1
member 5645
If this keeps up, I will be voting for the dark side...

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/busi...omy-gdp.html?hp

Economy Grew More Slowly in 1st Quarter Than First Thought
By REUTERS

Published: June 25, 2004

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy grew much more slowly than previously thought in the first quarter while inflation was higher, a government report showed on Friday.

The surprise downward revision to gross domestic product -- which measures total output within the nation's borders -- cut growth to a 3.9 percent annual rate in the first three months of 2004 from the 4.4 percent reported a month ago and below the 4.1 percent pace in the final quarter of last year.

The government also ratcheted up a key gauge of inflation, confirming an acceleration in price rises that has fueled expectations the Federal Reserve will begin raising interest rates from 1958 lows next week to head off inflation.

I support Bush in many aspects, especially in foreign policy (not particularly implementation of) - however, if the economy isn't doing something ridiculous by November, my pocket book will be making the vote for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Woohoo! Materialism strikes again!
 
  • #3
Adam said:
Woohoo! Materialism strikes again!

Hardly. On just a personal level:

money for me = school and supporting my family = attaining my goals

money for the US economy = greater opportunity for me

Stop your assumptions.
 
  • #4
:bugeye: "One of us!" :bugeye:
:bugeye:"One of us!" :bugeye:
:bugeye:"One of us!" :bugeye:

Njorl
 
  • #5
a good economy is the root for peace
 
  • #6
Why is it that we never see the right numbers the first time ? Not for the war expenditure...not for the medicare bill... not for the job growth projection figures...and now, not for the GDP growth and inflation numbers. And there's tremendous lobbying happening to push the "official date" for the start of the recession back into the Clinton years. I'm not so mad about that...but there does seem to be this enormous effort by the administration to make itself look good, by telling tales.

Wonder what's going to happen when Greenspan takes the stage next ?

Among all my reasons for not voting for Mr. Bush, the economic growth rate would be near the bottom. Way lower than the fiscal deficit. In fact, a fairly large chunk of the GDP growth comes out of Govt. spending.

Ooops...just realized, I'm not American.
 
  • #7
Gokul43201 said:
Why is it that we never see the right numbers the first time ? Not for the war expenditure...not for the medicare bill... not for the job growth projection figures...and now, not for the GDP growth and inflation numbers. And there's tremendous lobbying happening to push the "official date" for the start of the recession back into the Clinton years. I'm not so mad about that...but there does seem to be this enormous effort by the administration to make itself look good, by telling tales.


...yet so many people still don't see Bush & Co. as part of "the dark side". :rolleyes:
 
  • #8
kyleb said:
...yet so many people still don't see Bush & Co. as part of "the dark side". :rolleyes:
Because people like to use rhetoric like "Bush and Co.".
 
  • #9
Gokul43201 said:
Why is it that we never see the right numbers the first time ? Not for the war expenditure...not for the medicare bill... not for the job growth projection figures...and now, not for the GDP growth and inflation numbers. And there's tremendous lobbying happening to push the "official date" for the start of the recession back into the Clinton years. I'm not so mad about that...but there does seem to be this enormous effort by the administration to make itself look good, by telling tales.

Wonder what's going to happen when Greenspan takes the stage next ?

Among all my reasons for not voting for Mr. Bush, the economic growth rate would be near the bottom. Way lower than the fiscal deficit. In fact, a fairly large chunk of the GDP growth comes out of Govt. spending.

Ooops...just realized, I'm not American.

Let's not make this about estimates that turned sour. That happens across the board, in all governments. It sucks, I wish it weren't so, but there's no more to be said about it in this thread.

The focus is on- the economy is not doing THAT well, and do you/I think that Bush is going to increase it at a faster pace than the competition.


The fiscal deficit is on my mind, but the deficit and debt we can handle is in direct relation to our economy.
 
  • #10
Njorl said:
:bugeye: "One of us!" :bugeye:
:bugeye:"One of us!" :bugeye:
:bugeye:"One of us!" :bugeye:

Njorl

Tell your boy John Kerry to keep to the middle, and away from the left, and I'll vote for him.
Fix the economy and knock out hillary's chances of ever running? I love it!
 
  • #11
The left is currently spitting mad at Kerry for not waving their banners. They're trying to hang Gephardt on him as a Veep; won't happen. Looking forward to your vote for him.
 
  • #12
selfAdjoint said:
The left is currently spitting mad at Kerry for not waving their banners. They're trying to hang Gephardt on him as a Veep; won't happen. Looking forward to your vote for him.

we'll see.
i have promised myself I won't make my mind up until November 1.
 
  • #13
phatmonky said:
Because people like to use rhetoric like "Bush and Co.".

i'm sorry, but i don't follow your use of the term "rhetoric." when i said "Bush and Co." it was with no attempt at persuasion; i was merely referring to Bush, his VP, cabinet, and other various appointees in an abbreviated manor. regardless, even when considering such and abbreviation to be rhetoric; by what reason would you let that keep you from seeing the "dark" nature of the current administration as exemplified in Gokul's post?
 
  • #14
kyleb said:
i'm sorry, but i don't follow your use of the term "rhetoric." when i said "Bush and Co." it was with no attempt at persuasion; i was merely referring to Bush, his VP, cabinet, and other various appointees in an abbreviated manor. regardless, even when considering such and abbreviation to be rhetoric; by what reason would you let that keep you from seeing the "dark" nature of the current administration as exemplified in Gokul's post?


Well, then I digress. "Bush and Co." is typically used on all the board I am on by the leftist groups to further link Bush to big corporations.
The reason I specifically mentioned your post to you is you asked a question. If you refer to Bush as Bush and Co., you will have no luck 'converting' people to seeing things your way.

Gokul was just fully off subject and changing the thread - as we are now. No hard feelings, but let's get back on topic.
 
  • #15
I'm sorry I was so completely off subject.

For a minute there, I thought that perhaps my post was not completely about the taste of bananas. After all, you had just told us that numbers were being revised downwards from from earlier "optimistic" projections, and that brought to mind 3 or 4 similar cases of just such behavior in the recent past. And since you shared with us the reasons for your support of Mr. Bush, and the reason why you might vote the other way, I thought it strange that that would perhaps be the near exact opposite of my behavior - and thought I might share that curious difference with all of you.
 
  • #16
Gokul43201 said:
I'm sorry I was so completely off subject.

For a minute there, I thought that perhaps my post was not completely about the taste of bananas. After all, you had just told us that numbers were being revised downwards from from earlier "optimistic" projections, and that brought to mind 3 or 4 similar cases of just such behavior in the recent past. And since you shared with us the reasons for your support of Mr. Bush, and the reason why you might vote the other way, I thought it strange that that would perhaps be the near exact opposite of my behavior - and thought I might share that curious difference with all of you.


This thread is ruined as is anyways.Summary: Hip hooray democrats, you guys might have a red guy voting with you in November.


EOF.
 
  • #17
studentx said:
a good economy is the root for peace

Not harming others is the root for peace.
 
  • #18
my pocket book will be making the vote for me.

money for me = school and supporting my family = attaining my goals

money for the US economy = greater opportunity for me
What don't you get about the word "materialism"?
 
  • #19
Adam said:
What don't you get about the word "materialism"?

Absolutely nothing.Now, As usual Adam, get back on track.
Nothing in my post says anything about material concerns. You do not know my goals, or know what my thoughts on opportunity are.back off.
 
  • #20
Pfft. This thread is 100% about your vote hinging on material concerns. That is what I am discussing.
 
  • #21
Adam said:
Pfft. This thread is 100% about your vote hinging on material concerns. That is what I am discussing.
What the heck is wrong about having material concerns. I like having a nice house, a car to take me places and good food to eat. I also like having enough money stashed away so I can live in comfort when I get old. If you prefer to live in a hole in the ground and eat dirt, I have no problem with that. The problem with the have nots is they speak about the evils of money and material things and in their next breath they talk of redistribution of the wealth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Am I a "have not"? No. Have I spoken of the "redistribution of wealth"? No, I didn't. But you did. So what are you complaining about?
 
  • #23
Adam said:
Woohoo! Materialism strikes again!
Why make a point of it. It has the smell of sarcasm to me.
 
  • #24
phatmonky said:
This thread is ruined as is anyways.Summary: Hip hooray democrats, you guys might have a red guy voting with you in November.


EOF.
Phatmonky, before you take the grape CoolAid, remember, Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. A leopard doesn't change its spots.
 
  • #25
Njorl said:
:bugeye: "One of us!" :bugeye:
:bugeye:"One of us!" :bugeye:
:bugeye:"One of us!" :bugeye:

Njorl
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #26
Robert Zaleski said:
Phatmonky, before you take the grape CoolAid, remember, Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. A leopard doesn't change its spots.
Don't worry, that is fully on my mind :)
 
  • #27
But a liberal president with a conservative congress is historically good for the country. I don't take the Democrats' dream of recapturing congress seriously.
 
  • #28
Adam said:
Not harming others is the root for peace.

Not harming others IS peace :biggrin:
 

1. What do you mean by "the dark side"?

The phrase "the dark side" is often used in popular culture to refer to a morally corrupt or evil side of an individual or group. In this context, it may refer to a political party or ideology that is considered to be unethical or detrimental to society.

2. Are you suggesting that scientists are advocating for a specific political party?

No, as scientists, we do not endorse any particular political party or ideology. We are simply using this phrase as a hypothetical scenario to address the potential consequences of certain actions or policies.

3. What evidence or data supports the idea that we should be concerned about "voting for the dark side"?

This statement is not meant to suggest that one particular political party or ideology is inherently "dark" or dangerous. Rather, it is a cautionary statement about the potential negative impacts of certain policies or actions if they were to continue unchecked.

4. As a scientist, should you be making political statements?

As scientists, we have a responsibility to inform the public about potential consequences of certain actions or policies based on our expertise and research. However, we should not use our positions to endorse specific political parties or candidates.

5. Can you provide an example of a situation where "voting for the dark side" could have negative consequences?

One potential example could be if a political party or ideology promotes policies that ignore or deny scientific evidence and consensus, leading to harmful impacts on the environment or public health. This could ultimately have negative consequences for society and future generations.

Similar threads

News Outlook for the Global Economy
    • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
3K
News What is wrong with the US economy?
    • General Discussion
25
Replies
870
Views
104K
News Is The Global Economic Crisis Worse Than Expected?
    • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
4K
News Psssttt, the deficit's shrinking
    • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Some humiliating stats on the USA
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
News Presidential Powers in Perspective
    • General Discussion
Replies
22
Views
3K
Oil crisis: deja vu by any other name?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Terrible Economics in USA Today
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
News The Future of the US dollar and it's effect on the US economy
    • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
4K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
    • General Discussion
4
Replies
133
Views
24K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top