Schwarzeneggar is California Governor !

Very interesting LordSaytan thanks

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

That's good stuff, Slay.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

You say you don't trust President Bush. Would it be fair to say, also, that you felt the same way about his predecessor, President Clinton? If you apply the same standards to Willie as you have to Dubya, wouldn't you have to conclude that he, too, was unworthy of your trust?This isn't quite true. The U.S. Supreme Court did not decide the outcome of the election; what they did decide, however, was that the Constitution states that each state is to handle such matters. In this case, ratification of an election. The law in Florida states that the election must be ratified 5 days after it is completed, and when Harris decided to do just that, the Supreme Court did nothing more than deny objections and appeals to this, stating that it was a ball in Florida's court, and not their own.Is this really so ridiculous? I'm not sure exactly how solid the evidence should be, but I'm assuming the bulk of environmental programs will eat up billions of dollars without breaking a sweat.

What's particularly grating is that (and I'm not saying this applies to you), many Dems voice objection to this sort of thing, yet have no problem labeling the SDI program as an outrageous waste of money with no future.Everything I've read about the arsenic standard says that there's nothing at all dangerous about the change. If I've been misinformed, please feel free to elaborate.I can't think of any religious friend, offhand, who thinks this way. And given Bush's repeated commitment to Hydrogen-powered cars and the like (assuming you believe he's not lying through his teeth on the matter), I don't think that reflects his thought process in regards to the environment."This dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security. To put it bluntly, sometimes we rely upon energy sources from countries that don't particularly like us."

"It is good news for our environment and it's good news for American consumers who are not only worried about the environment, but understand the ramifications of dependency on foreign sources of crude oil."

You may not trust Bush, but he's saying the same sorts of things as Kerry in regards to our dependence on foreign oil. It should also be noted that Bush has never intended for the Alaskan drilling to be anything more than a temporary fix while better solutions can be put into action; it is not the energy crutch Kerry seems to be making it out to be.In response, I feel compelled to urge that everyone who reads this post vote on the validity of policy. While it's possible that Bush may make this decision in part because of his religion, or that one because of his ties to various businesses, it remains primarily speculation. It is the results, not the motivations, which should garner the most attention.

Above board enough. But why didn't they pick Harris up on her changing of the law concerning post-dated votes? And i think one point of contention with the Supreme Court is the number of conflicts of interests that fall in Republican's favour. I'm too far removed to judge - but it seems that Thomas is just one of many (unless i'm mixing up the national and florida SC's)

I'm a bit perturbed by his plans for hydrogen energy storage. Altho it looks good on the surface, he's lining up all his oil-buddies for the contracts, and the whole process is equally damaging to the environment in terms of greenhouse gases, so it makes no odds that, if it works, the system will be storing energy generated by green-sources etc. Energy consumption in the US NEEDS to be addressed - and he's not doing that. A consumer society may just eat itself whole. (and take some big bites out of those around it too )

Indeed. Tho again, in situations where we CAN point out undue industry influence in policy making we should (which is notoriously difficult - as politicians/industry try not to advertise this stuff - outside of barefaced bribary, sorry, lobbying, to all sides. I know how you feel about this Yods, but i see it as industry controlling politics in an unjustifiable way)

Is this the right moment for me to post my letters-between-Lay-and-Bush? Just let me know They show Lay pushing for the deregulation which screwed up your whole energy system. And don't forget Enron have supported Bush throughout all of his political life. That's a strong reason to suspect Bush would listen to this biased advice and act on it [yet again going against the open-playing-field economics he espouses - as he did with Halliburton etc etc. Why you can't see a problem with this stuff is beyond me - and incidently, hasn't deregulation done so many wonderful things in the hands of economic-thinkers like Bush Well, it's reduced quality of service where-ever it's reared it's head in national service areas as far as i know. And tax-cuts look likely to acheive the same - i.e. a reduction in services - industry fills the gap, and does so with a lesser standard of service - risking lives in many spheres. Not good. We just had a train accident in Britland directly attributable to the ineptness of private companies governing safety proceedures on our rail-networks. And remember that the Brit government has a "third-way" policy - i.e. only privatising some aspects of social services. Bush is all out industry-and-competition-should-define society. That's a path to social-chaos if you ask me. Not that you would )

So, bad results, linked to bad policy, and bad business/political practice, means we should look at the REASONS for the bad RESULTS. Don't you think?

Hmm, that was more like 2-dollars-worth wasn't it

But on your is-Bush-worse-than-the-others standpoint - i'd say, marginally, yes. But those margins are important. The Dems have a touch more concern for social integrity IMO. (and blow jobs. I vote for blow jobs. It keeps them relaxed. Where's the prob? I'd rather lies about bj's than lies about war. And they did lie. They's still lying now by asserting there are reasons to believe Saddam has connections to al Qaeda. British intelligence says this is categorically not the case. They know that. The Niger Uranium info was forged, and not from Brit sources - they knew that b4 they announced it as fact. The wife of the guy who established that got outed as an operative - is that bad practice? Hell yes. Tantamount to reducing national security to advance political aims? Hell yes. Similar to telling the CIA to lay off Bin Laden while Bush n Cheney negotiated with the Taliban and the Bin Ladens over the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline? [a claim put forward by a French intelligence officer and jorno Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, in their book ''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''. They claim that the FBI's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction. They claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. Oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. etc etc etc]. Hell, it doesn't even come close. Is that reason enough to get rid of a president and his incumbents? Hell yes - if it's true. And it fits the facts.)

EDIT: Damn, ignoring terrorist threats was something Clinton did too according to our investigative Frenchies:

http://www.salon.com/politics/featur...den/print.html

Heigh ho, time to get rid of all the blow-hards - or at least, in the US case, put some pressure on them to put some measures in place to reduce your oil dependancy i.e. address CONSUMPTION - and all the dirty politics and warmongering that has grown up around it. Where should the attention really be focused? On industry baby - and the nature of society. Part of it's people's fault - when we don't pay attention to what all of these power-brokers get up. Well, some facts have been coming in for a while - time to wipe off their photo-opportunity smiles and address their manipulative wiles.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

No. I don’t trust the current President on a different level. I’m not naïve enough to believe that there is such a thing as a political official to be brimming with honesty. For every bit of information presented to the American public, there are a dozen pieces of information that are excluded. Of course I have no proof that such a thing exists, but it’s just something that we all know. That I know. President Clinton did not have a multi-million enterprise to return to after his term as president is over. The current President does. There are things within his environmental policies that seem to be there for his and his business allies best interests at heart. Of course I have no way to prove these things, because information found, no matter what the recourse, is always subjective to bias and manipulation. I cannot say for sure whether what I feel is entirely accurate, but regardless of that, it is what I feel. And, my friend, my feelings are not up to your interpretation or argument. Dig?

I never said that the Honorable Clarence Thomas had the deciding vote whether Bush was the winner. I just said that it was an unfair advantage to have him voting for anything that regarded the validity of Bush being claimed the victor. If it were a criminal case, Thomas would have been excluded. His vote was the deciding vote to have “the ball go back to Florida’s court”. Any decision, regardless of the decision, should not have been made by this man. Just my opinion.

Yes. It really is ridiculous. My whole point with that statement, which you replied to out of context, was that Bush’s administration could, and did, use that argument when it was the environment at stake. But they never thought to bring this up when it came to matters of war. What I find grating are people (and I’m not saying this applies to you) who ignore the fact that the war cost, and will cost, billions of dollars. The same dollars that they want to save by waiting for concrete proof before they take any action to save our children from disease and hardship later on in life, because we put the buck before them.

How can I elaborate? How can you? It is what we read, not what we as scientists uncover for ourselves. It’s what you read, Chris. Your information can be biased, as well as mine. All I do know is that there were standards which needed to be met, which were already in place, and were later turned back a step. Any step backwards when the environment is concerned, is a wrong step as far as I’m concerned.

His thought processes on the environment are not for you or I to interpret. It is only by his actions that can prove what he thinks. Do you know exactly what he’s done towards his ‘commitment’ to Hydrogen-powered cars? Besides what he says they are. Show me irrefutable proof of money spent and who he has working on these issues. How many man-hours have been spent? How much money has been used, not set aside, but actually used for this policy of his. His actions of constantly overturning standards already put in place are enough action for me to have an opinion on what his dedication to the environment really is. Squat.

Bush never said that, his speechwriter did. They write what the American public wants to hear, as well as Kerry’s writer. I don’t really like Kerry; I just liked what he said. never intended my liking that statement to be a statement of allegiance to the Senator.

What are Bush’s results, which you speak of? He’s pro-life, not pro-choice, that’s mainly a conservative religious point of view. We are in a recession. We have gone to war twice in three years. We have digressed in personal freedoms because of fear and handed our rights back to the government. We have allowed a man like John Ashcroft to rise in power. Bush is a Christian. A die-hard Christian and I don’t believe that there is a true separation of his policy making and belief.

Listen Chris. Last night when we were chatting, we agreed that what I wrote was just my opinion and not really an argument. But you went ahead and treated it as such, changing it into a Bush is not bad, you’re just misinformed or wrong post. You and the President cannot be always right, and I know you don’t say you always are. But you defended him down to the very sentence of my post. All your information that you use in your arguments can be spun information not necessarily the truth, just as much as all my information may be. I go by my gut. I don’t trust Bush. I don’t like Bush. And I don’t want him to be President any longer. Most of all…I DON’T WANT A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT TO BE IN CHARGE!!!!!

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

I shall get to Gol shortly.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean that you have no interest in anyone interpreting them or arguing with them, that's your prerogative. But if you mean that it's not something that can be interpreted or argued with, I'd have to respectfully disagree.


Thanks for the clarification. It's a fine point, and I mostly agree, though I think we would also agree that far more important than whether or not he should have made the choice, is whether or not he made the right one. In my mind, there's no question that he could have made any other decision without it flying in the face of the way our country has worked since its inception.


You're right, there is a bit of a parallel with the war; but doesn't that parallel work both ways? If it's inexcusable to put today's money before tomorrow's citizens, isn't it just as inexcusable (if not moreso) to put today's money before tomorrow's Iraqi citizens? They're people, to, of course, and even the staunchest opponents of this war generally admit that the citizens of Iraq are, or are slowly becoming, better off. Saddam's cruelty and the terror so many Iraqis lived under is a rare point of consensus among both proponents and opponents of the war.


I guess what I'm asking is, what do you mean when you say they "needed" to be met? What consequence is now suffered because of this rollback of sorts.


With all due respect, isn't this exactly what you're doing when you accuse him of letting his religious motivations unduly effect his decision making?


According to the Office of Management and Budget, their 2004 budget has $1.5 billion dedicated to fund FreedomFuel and FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) over the next five years. According to the OMB's site, this amount will be "doubling DOE’s spending on hydrogen research and development in 2004 alone." The stated goal is to develop "viable hydrogen fuel-cell technology for cars by 2015."

You and I are free to speculate as to whether or not this program will be all that successful, but I think it's fair to say that he's putting his (our) money where his mouth is on this particular issue.


That's a fair way to measure how concerned he actually is with the environment...but isn't this statement assuming that the standards he overturned were worth keeping? Do we really know if they were?


Well, if we cannot give Bush credit for what he says, if written by a speechwriter, then by extension we cannot criticize him them, either. This would render us unable to praise or criticize the bulk of things he's said.

I think, therefore, we have to treat what he says as his own words. It's not unlike one poster saying "I totally agree with what USER X said." Adopting someone else's statement binds you to it in much the same way saying it yourself would have, and should generally be treated as the same basic thing. As such, either Bush is outright lying, or else you like what he stands for in regards to foreign oil. Not that agreeing with him as one issue constitutes an endorsement, of course.


Yes, but the fact that it's mainly held by conservative and/or religious folks does not mean the belief is at all contingent on either viewpoint. One can make a compelling argument against the pro-choice stance without invoking God at all, for example.


I don't want to directly contradict you, but we are most definitely not, by virtually any standard you use. I check the basic economic indicators myself on a fairly regular basis, and the doom and gloom the media is trying to feed all us is completely inconsistent with what the data says.


I don't believe there necessarily needs to be. For one, it's virtually impossible for a man to hold core beliefs such as those without them having any impact on his ability to make decisions. So long as he doesn't abuse his power to his own ends, I don't see a problem.


Not at all. There are a number of things I did not argue with. And a fair number of the things I did "argue" with were not actually arguments, but questions. Perhaps I come off as hostile unintentionally. I can tell you honestly that this is how I often learn about things: by asking questions, either of myself, or of others. It's not always meant to be in a challenging sort of way.

Anyway, yes, some of what you wrote was just opinion (and you'll notice that, in regards to the war, I acknowledged that and cited it as the reason I didn't plan to contest that point), but some of the things you said would, I'd say, definitely constitute arguments; or claims, if you'd rather.


Neither do I. I despise Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and others like them. You are entitled to your opinion, but in mine, Bush does not qualify as a religious zealot. Secular arguments can be made in defense of most (if not all) of his policies.

First I want to apologize to Chris for my seeming hostility with my previous post. I was unaware as I was typing that it would sound that way. I only have the greatest respect for our beloved Yoda and his dedication for knowledge and truth. I, by no means, have any desire to vilify his opinions, religious belief, or understanding of truth. With that said, I’ll try my best to answer all of his questions and respond to his statements.

I guess I did mean that I didn’t really have any interest with debating my viewpoint. Maybe that comes from laziness or closed mindedness. In the end though, I still have a nagging belief that ones own feelings are unarguable unlike that of a persons actions. For example, the way I presented my point of view can be debated, because I may have been erroneous in it’s form. However, when I say that, in my gut, I don’t trust the guy. That is not up for debate. Not because I don’t want it to be, but because you can’t prove my gut wrong. Show me all the facts you like, if I feel a certain way, not think but feel, it is set.

You have a point as well. Well said.

I personally backed the war for the very reasons that you cite. That was not my argument. I just feel that if the current administration can use an argument of not using our tax dollars to prevent an extremely important issue, because the facts don’t suit their current needs, then they should have to use the same argument for a situation that does.

Not all consequences are seen until time has expired. During Clinton’s reign, his scientific advisor’s felt that these initiatives were important for the American citizens. There was no advantage to be given to any corporation, which I know of, by initiating it. Why is it that when Bush comes into office, these policies already set in place are deemed so unnecessary? Why did it need to be changed? It was put in place to protect drinking water for the American public and I don’t understand what motivation was behind the rollback.

Mayhap I am. However, I see religion behind policies being made more often than the welfare of the environment.

This was what I was asking. Show me money spent, not put aside. How often has money been supposedly put aside for something, just to have it used for something else later on? It happens not only at the capital, but in local jurisdictions as well. Just because money has been elected to be used for something, doesn’t mean it will be. In other words, it sounds to good to be true. And often when that’s the case…it is.

No, do we really know if they weren’t? It’s a stalemate of ancient proportions.

I agree with you. I should have thought more about my response here before I posted it. However, I would really like to see Bush in more press conferences where there is no question unable to be answered. If I can see what he thinks without aid more often, then perhaps my trust would grow.

True. But often is the case where the President does invoke God into his reasoning. I hated how he handled 9/11 and focusing it on religious symbolism. As well as the term, “Axis of Evil”, and asking all Americans to pray during that time. I believe there should be a seperation of church and state at all levels, and our current President does not always do that. It is a turn off for someone like me.

True again. I didn’t quite mean what I said, and in hindsight, wish I hadn’t said it. This President has proven too not to be an economical President. Not all are. But in the last 50 years, name a President that has created fewer jobs, and has created a larger deficit in this short of time.

I disagree with you completely here. Because Bush has shown more than once that there is a blurred line between his policy making and his belief structure. Clinton was a believer as well, but he didn’t try to trample individual rights, even though he disagreed with what those rights represented. If there isn’t that blurred line, then I would agree with you more.

Don’t argue with me and always respect your elders. Namely me.

Don’t say, if not all. I respect you more than that and you know it isn’t completely true. If he had his way, women would lose their right to choose. It is solely because of his religious beliefs. I really don’t want to debate about pro-life vs. pro-choice, we’ve done that, and are on different sides of the fence. You have said that religion doesn’t need to be presented when arguing pro-life, but in your case personally, belief seems to really be the deciding factor. And it seems that is the case behind all the, “it’s not my religion that makes me feel this way” arguments.

doh, now i'll never get to join in the fun and lock horns over some anti-fawning Are the end of Bush's days dawning? The economy's turning but now the people are gurning at all the chances for real peace Bushy's been spurning.

Still, i won't interrupt too much - just save up my points til me and yods get in a clutch (i really wanna comment on all this stuff - but it'd all get too much )

It's no problem at all. I think we both often sound more hostile than we are, and, knowing you, it certainly wasn't intentional. All's well in MoFo paradise. Understood. In that case, I'll try to clarify a few points I think important, but I'll leave you to sort out your own instincts uninfringed upon.I see what you're saying, and I think it may be true, depending on how valid their skepticism is. IE: there was no plausible doubt that people were suffering in Iraq, but apparently there IS some plausible doubt about how dangerous this environmental problem is. So, I'd say whether or not they're being hypocritical would depend on whether or not their doubt is a reasonable one, which I admittedly don't know offhand.I imagine the motivation was reducing the burden various companies were under. Which is a great idea, assuming the standards were unnecessarily strict. Again, though, I don't know for certain if they were. I do feel quite comfortable assuming that they were, however, seeing as how no President, no matter how incompetent, would knowingly allow potential harmful amounts of any chemical or poison in a public water supply. As much as you might distrust Bush, the last thing he wants is people dropping dead after chasing their pills.No argument there. Religion is, by definition, a profound matter which has far-reaching ideological implications.Well, in that case, I can't help you, because all Bush can really do is allocate money for the next year's budget, which he has done. I'm fairly sure, however, that once it's laid out in the federal budget (especially as explicitly as in the 2004 budget), that you can rely on it. That's just my opinion, though.

If you want to get really critical, the only way you'll know if they've spent the money or not is if you start driving one of these things in a couple of decades.No, I don't know for sure. See above, though, for reasons I've taken the side I have.I relucantly concede that Bush could do a lot more to inspire trust in the populace. I think he inspires trust in a lot of people with his very nature, which casts him as an amiable southerner, of course; something that's very hard not to like. Still, I think he often does a less-than-ideal job of answering his critics, even though there are often plenty of decent (but not always definitive) counterarguments.I'm not sure I understand: are you suggesting that Bush's personal faith has somehow violated this seperation? If so, I would very strongly disagree. Everyone has a belief structure, and no matter what the President's philosophical persuasion, he can't mirror everybody's way of thinking, and therefore has no choice but to enact policies based around what he has concluded is best.This may shock you, but I completely disagree. I think he's a very economical President, and history will bear him out as such when the data is presented sans spin. The numbers are becoming downright definitive, especially when one considers that he inherited an economy that had just been punched in the gut, AND two fairly significant military actions (whether he is the sole cause of the second is up for debate, but doesn't speak to his effectiveness economically).

You don't have to take my word for it, of course. Feel free to check yourself. GDP, if I'm not mistaken, has been rising every quarter since Bush began to enact his tax policis. The chart below demonstrates this (the red arrow points to the date, approximately, on which Bush signed his first tax cut.



It only goes up to the first quarter of 2003 (I graphed this thing online months ago, originally), but the second quarter rate of growth was 3.3%, which is pretty decent, historically, and continues the trend shown above. The predicted rate of growth for next quarter ranges between 5 and 7 percent...the former is damned good, and the latter is fanf**kingtastic.

I'll answer the second question first: FDR. Those who claim that Dubya's deficit is record breaking aren't accounting for inflation, which is positively necessary when comparing dollar amounts across time. When that's done, FDR's 1943 deficits approached half a trillion dollars. Runner-up: Truman (in 1945).

MOST importantly, though, is how each deficit stacks up as a percentage of GDP. Debt itself is not the problem, and it is not inherently evil. If it were, there'd be no sense in you or I ever buying anything we didn't have enough for in cold, hard cash. The problem is having debt you can't pay down.

There's an economist who uses a profound analogy to dispel the myth that deficits are inherently harmful: imagine two people. Person A skips college and works at a convenience store instead. Person B is accepted into Harvard, and takes on massive student loans in order to pay for it. After four years, Person A hasn't managed to save much money, but doesn't really owe any, either. Person B owes plenty to Harvard, but has a law degree. Person B has a deficit, but Person A has a "balanced budget." Who's better off?

The moral of the story is, in short, that debt can be good if you use it well, and Bush is using this debt for two things: a) the war, and b) his tax cuts. The latter is already beginning to prove very beneficial to economic growth, and if that holds steady, I think one must conclude that it is a striking example of using debt wisely.

There's more to go into, if you remain unconvinced, but this discussion isn't really about the deficit anyway, so I've probably said too much already. Sorry about that...economics is a growing interest of mine.There's some debate, I believe, as to whether or not Clinton really believed. Keep in mind virtually every President attends worship services; good luck getting elected to those who don't. That said, I honestly cannot recall Bush making significant decisions that were clearly based on nothing more than this religious beliefs. If you're thinking of anything specific, please, do tell.I'm not particularly in the mood to get into the abortion issue again, either, but I'm being dead serious when I say belief in God is not necessary for the pro-life view (unless you mean to trace all morality back to Theism, in which case, it could be argued that all laws are also based on religion). In fact, there are entire organizations specifically for Atheists who oppose legalized abortion.

You're welcome to disbelieve this, of course, but you've left me with no way to make my point without violating your wishes to avoid an argument about abortion.

I'm tired now man, tomorrow. BTW, we're getting too touchy, feely now. I need to fix that.. JERK!!! *whew* Now I feel better.

Yeah, I think we all know it's time to take a break when someone starts bustin' out line graphs.

No rush.

so geting back to AUHNULD...anyone upset that he is going to spend more time in politics than in film.

__________________
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"

Who said we're going back to Arnold?

You swore...


The technical definition of recession is that the gross domestic product has to go back two quarters in a row, and as the table shows, it goes up and down the whole time. So recession is the wrong definition perhaps but the american economy is indeed unstable.

The investments in the private sector might be increasing, but the household consumption is going down. This is because ordinary people have less money which is a result of the unemployment which the biggest in ten years, if I am correctly informed. Another sign of a weak american economy is that the dollar is weakened against the euro and also the swedish krona (which is not the strongest currency in the world, I tell you).

Gross domestic product can go up even if a country has problems with the economy. In USA's case it is probably because it is the biggest economy in the world and the investors have a lot of faith in it. There's nothing wrong with being optimistic but one has to be realistic at the same time.

Damn right I did. Perhaps a tad, but not half as unstable as the chart indicates; you'll notice it covers less than 2 percentage points. So it's not as if it's been ups and downs, so much as bigger ups, and then smaller ups. Case in point: the GDP over the last several quarters: 1.3, 4.0, 1.4, 1.4, 3.3.That's more or less correct. It's the highest in around 9 years. That, however, is primarily because Clinton's unemployment rates were strikingly low. The current rate of 6.1 percent is right at the 30-year average, so any panic you hear about the job market lacks historical perspective.

As for the dollar and euro; unless I've misunderstood you, that wouldn't be a sign of a weak economy at all. Remember, we had a period of deflation not long ago; a bit of temporary, intentional inflation is to be expected. Admittedly, it could go too far, but a lower exchange rate is not inherently bad news.Sure, a rising GDP does not mean there's absolutely nothing to worry about, but I'd say it's probably the single best economic indicator to use when measuring economic growth. If growth continues, jobs inevitably follow.

Unfortunately, unemployment is a lagging indicator, so I've got to wait for the numbers to bear me out. There is, however, already reason to believe that the tide is turning (aside from the massive expected GDP growth): employment numbers. Unemployment is a bit up, but so is employment. My old man did a little research on this, and the difference can be reconciled by the fact that the two statistics are compiled in different ways; it appears that, when these two statistics diverge, it signals an increase in small businesses. We shall see.

Don't worry - one can assume the dollar will strengthen again - one has only to ensure the petrodollars from the second biggest national source of oil starts rolling back in one assumes. One simply can't wait for that Iraqi oil to get back to trading levels

Yes indeed, Yoda has some stats on his side. My limited economic reading and understanding informs me that the US economy is indeed on an up-turn all round

(tho certain criteria - like rises in service employment but not manufacturing suggest to this layman that there's a possible superficiality to it all. Plus...
-With consumer spending dropping according to piddz, a major bolsterer of the economy is dropping away too
-add to that that i believe that american products are not exporting/competing that well in lots of spheres, including farming with the GM debacle, and it's difficult to see any significant support for the economy on that side.
-The tax cuts may produce more private service-industry jobs - but will they be less well paid in an attempt to make maximum profit? i.e. will the downturn in consumer spending continue? Just a supposition [and for now i'll stay away from the: effect-of-poor-services-on-society/How-GDP-isn't-the-best-sign-of-national-"health" arguments ]
-Overall the stats do seem to suggest instability rather than a rosey promised land arriving. Remember, as you said, a lot has been risked on this policy in terms of debt paying for it. I understand the argument for debt/profit cycles, as Britland has entered a debting time now, after years of prudence (and we are now facing the type of prob bush likes to ignore i.e. maintain standards in public services and raise taxes - or privatise/reduce quality - [the two are synonymous IMO - not that i think state control is best per se - just that privatisation seems to be disastrous in certain spheres and under current implementation practices - and just a generator of society-unfriendly monopolies in others ])

Yods - what do you think are the prime causes of this current upturn in economic pointers? Personally, i think industry and economics influence policy-making and political practice so frequently that they fully deserve a place in this discussion. (tho of course, most of the theory is gobbldigook to me. ****, that means i should really understand it )

EDIT: Oh wait, i've got an answer pending haven't i. Oh well, u can ignore my impatient impishness if you like, or just rattle out some answering tattle to one or t'other. I'd be interested in the economics bit for now. We can have a cow over the broader one after There, aren't i nice, i give u options