Donguillermo, first of all, forgive any past or current incorrect spellings (attack against the person not the argument -- fallacy); I am typing in a
hurry without any chance for review. Do you really want me to label all of your fallacies?
1. "talking points" and "Mindless cheerleading?" Simple non-sequitur; the truth of any of my statements, do not matter about the character of a
source that may sound like. If we want to say that mindless cheerleading consists of pointing back to statistics. The actual news shows the economy
getting better. The points you brought up are NOT used as signs to show the GROWTH of an economy -- except has political mumblings. What is used as
growth of an economy is GDP growth (refer to my last point).
2. "President Hoover" Simple non-sequitur; the truth of Bush's comments do not exist in the economics of the last president that used a specific
line. I presented another example of a catch phrase being used by another person to show you that these points do not make any sense to the issue at
"Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate, the fastest pace since the first
quarter of 1984, the Commerce Department reported ... Last month, the government reported that GDP grew at a 7.2 percent clip in the third quarter.
Economists, on average, expected that to be revised to 7.6 percent, according to Briefing.com."
Nearly 8% in the third quarter! Back to the drawing board.
4. I glossed over that line of reasoning because it says nothing about the growth of the economy. Again, according to classical economics, the GDP
is how we determine the state of the economy. What you are talking about is the state of the PEOPLE in the economy -- in the economy at a transition
state at that!
5. No, wage rate is not a sign of economic health. However, it may be a sign of how well people are doing in the economy. What you seem to forget
is that if the average of wages go down, then prices also go down (again, classical economics). Either way, as more jobs get created, the less
workers around there will be. This pushes the wage rates up. In other words, we need to wait! Moreover, I don't see how you would apply any of
this to Bush and his Admin. Since the labor market determines wages, this can not be a platform to attack the current government with. That's why I
brought it up -- no strawman there; it's just an out of context attack on your part.
6. Again, according to the GDP, the economy is improving. You can't weasle your way out of this fact by making up things you think show a negative
7. Increased interest rates are a real sign of inflation and inflation control. And, as expected, interest rates were higher on average during the
clinton-gore admin -- see the graphs for yourselves:
8. What I mean is that too many people were employed for the economy to support for a given time. Mostly in the IT sectors was this the case -- it
just couldn't last forever, and it didn't.
9. The Iraq war accounts for a lot of that deficit (a little more than a 1/4th). Bush shouldn't take responsibility for the Iraq war; afterall,
only congress can authorize a use of force -- and it did. He just lead us through it. Bush does take responsibility for the tax cuts, for which he
argues lead us to this great growth (again, look at the GDP).
10. "Currently he promises to win support from the German and French governments for the occupation, but says he will also send 40,000 more U.S.
troops to Iraq rather than pull out."
I'm having trouble finding Kerry's exact quote for the healthcare deficit (this was awhile ago), and if I can find it again, I'll post it in due
time. However, here are some concerns:
“Federal costs under the Kerry plans would be $895 billion over ten years to extend insurance to 26.7 million uninsured [of 43.6 million total
uninsured]. This includes approximately $230 billion in federal spending for the reinsurance pool that targets those with health insurance and $665
billion for programs targeting the uninsured.” -- Kenneth E. Thorpe, “An Overview And Analysis Of The Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Health Care
Reform Proposals,” 9/7/03; “Health Insurance Coverage In The United States: 2002,” U.S. Census Bureau, 9/03
"Kerry said he would fund his plan by repealing the reductions Congress approved in 2001 in income tax rates for the top two brackets -- and perhaps
the top three -- as well as more generous treatment of personal exemptions for the affluent. He'd also reduce the tax break planned for estates.
Peter Orszag, a tax expert at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, said those proposals would save about $80 billion to $90 billion a year by
2013. That wouldn't be enough to pay for Kerry's health-care plan, much less the other initiatives he is considering.” -- Ronald Brownstein, “Kerry
Unveils Health-Care Overhaul Plan,” Los Angeles Times, 5/17/03
12. I'll address your "national debt as a percentage of GDP is increasing is a sure sign of future economic problems" point whenever you back it
up with some evidence.
13. The last tax-cut was passed late May 2003 wherein the economy was just starting to grow. Have you seen Bush asking for even more tax cuts
"Keynesians believe that prices and, especially, wages
respond slowly to changes in supply and demand, resulting in shortages and surpluses,
especially of labor."
" The 1960s and 1980s were periods of sustained high growth rates in the economy. The major reason for this growth is the tax cuts enacted in the
beginning of each decade. President Kennedy's and President Reagan's tax cuts resulted in higher investment, lower unemployment, and improved
overall economic performance. "
"Economic theory makes it clear that tax increases harm economic growth. However, like many economic questions, it is important to look at the
historical record to confirm the theory. Economists have looked at tax reduction throughout the world. In the United States, there were two
significant post-World War II periods of tax reduction: the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s. A look at these
episodes demonstrates that cutting taxes unleashes the creative forces of the American economy and provides incentives to work, save and invest. "
"The Kennedy Administration's proposal to reduced taxes on business continued into 1964. In 1964, the corporate tax rate fell from 52 percent to 48
percent. Also, individual tax rates fell. The top marginal tax rate fell from 90 percent to 70 percent. The lowest marginal tax rate fell from 20
percent to 14 percent. The result was an expanding economy. Real GNP growth, which averaged only 2.4 percent from 1952 to 1960, rose to 4.5 percent in
the sixties (Figure 4). When the expansion that started in February of 1961 ended nearly nine years later, it was, and still is, the longest expansion
in the history of the United States. "
14. Again, our economy, government, and adminstration doesn't have much say with respect to foriegn oil prices. OPEC, on the other hand, does.
Moreover, we never bought Iraqi oil -- nor did any other country -- due to the "oil for food" program. Iraq is the one that has had attacks on its
"BUSH ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES INCREASED INVESTMENTS FOR ETHANOL AND BIOENERGY PROJECTS ... WASHINGTON, Oct. 22, 2002—Agriculture Secretary Ann M.
Veneman today announced the approval of 35 Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development grants in 22 states, totaling over $7.2 million. The
grants will foster the development of alternative energy sources while spurring economic growth and job creation in rural communities. ... “President
Bush’s comprehensive energy plan places significant emphasis on the use of alternative energy sources, such as ethanol and biodiesel, as part of the
nation’s overall energy strategy,” said Veneman "
That's just ONE example.
I have had plenty of course work in economics; about the same as you. Not that it matters -- such an appeal is also a fallacy. I await your