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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Voting
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the economic performance of the U.S. and its implications for voting behavior in the context of the 2004 presidential election. Participants express various opinions on the economy's growth, inflation, and political leadership, particularly focusing on President Bush's administration and its economic policies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over the downward revision of GDP growth and its implications for the economy, suggesting that personal financial circumstances will influence their voting decisions.
  • Others argue that economic growth is essential for peace and opportunity, linking personal financial stability to broader economic conditions.
  • There are repeated questions about the accuracy of economic data and the perceived manipulation of figures by the government, particularly regarding inflation and recession timelines.
  • Some participants challenge the use of terms like "Bush and Co." as rhetorical, arguing that it oversimplifies the complexities of political discourse.
  • One participant notes that a significant portion of GDP growth is attributed to government spending, raising concerns about the sustainability of such growth.
  • There is a mention of internal conflicts within the Democratic Party regarding candidate support and strategies, particularly concerning John Kerry.
  • Several posts reflect frustration with the direction of the discussion, indicating a desire to return to the economic topic rather than political rhetoric.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement on the effectiveness of the current administration's economic policies and the interpretation of economic data. There is no consensus on the implications of these issues for voting behavior or the characterization of political figures.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various economic indicators and political strategies without resolving the underlying assumptions or the accuracy of the data discussed. The conversation reflects a mix of personal perspectives and broader political commentary.

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
Woohoo! Materialism strikes again!
 
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.
 
:bugeye: "One of us!" :bugeye:
:bugeye:"One of us!" :bugeye:
:bugeye:"One of us!" :bugeye:

Njorl
 
a good economy is the root for peace
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.".
 
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
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #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:
 

Similar threads

News Will Japan's Recession Impact Global Economic Stability?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
News [Economy] Federal Reserve announces new round of quantitative easing
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
News What is wrong with the US economy?
  • · Replies 870 ·
30
Replies
870
Views
116K
News Is The Global Economic Crisis Worse Than Expected?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
News Hunger in America: 38M Americans Face Food Insecurity
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
News Psssttt, the deficit's shrinking
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
News French economy- how can it not collapse
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
News Some humiliating stats on the USA
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
News Presidential Powers in Perspective
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
News What Will China's Future Hold: Rival, Ally or Enemy?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
8K