其实共和党就布什一家子爱打仗
想想当年的里根兵不血刃搞垮了苏联
是不是叫和平演变来着,
找你的说法，美国应该马上打伊朗。这样把两仪彻底解决掉。
刚才还讲退税，原来是为了石油。每月10 Billion，不知道打仗的钱哪里来的？让fed多印一点纸币，每人人都是百万富翁。共和党的功劳就更大了。
美国肯定会打伊朗的，美国在中东都经营了那么久了，怎么会因为现在这点问题就放弃了。现在不过是时机的问题。
美国现在经济是不行，所以要打仗。不打仗，美元崩溃了，美国这才是真正的玩完了。
说起功劳，其实卡特时期的经济那才叫吓人，那样都熬过来了，现在比起来实在不算什么非常糟糕。
美国肯定会打伊朗的，美国在中东都经营了那么久了，怎么会因为现在这点问题就放弃了。现在不过是时机的问题。
美国现在经济是不行，所以要打仗。不打仗，美元崩溃了，美国这才是真正的玩完了。
说起功劳，其实卡特时期的经济那才叫吓人，那样都熬过来了，现在比起来实在不算什么非常糟糕。
why ??? a big chunck of our tax payer's money goes to war, and not much left for education and health care. Say universities could not get funding, then could not attrack students. then, it is really a bad thing
这是谁写的啊
里根执政八年间的丰功伟绩怎么一点都不提
ALthough Reagan is a Republican, he supported tax increase as well. He signed several bills to increase taxes including social security tax rate, which we are using today. Look at two greatest economic expansion in recent 40 years (Reagan and Clinton), both increased tax.
Lao La, your data confuses me. Let's look at this meta-analysis done by economists
DATA TABLE.
Acronyms: BLS = U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; BEA = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
| Metric | Source of data/ analysis | Average under Democratic Presidents/ Administrations | Average under Republican Presidents/ Administrations | Who measured better on this metric? (See critiques page) |
| Average Ranking (lower the number the better) for highest GDP growth, real disposable personal income, employment/ unemployment, deficit reduction 1953-2001 | Average rank calculated from ranking data from Dan Ackman, Forbes.com | Overall rank: 4.58 (top 3 are Democrats) GDP rank: 3.8 Real Disposable Employment rank: 4.6 Deficit Reduction | Overall rank: 6.44 (Reagan is #4) GDP rank: 7.2 Real Disposable Employment rank: 6.4 Deficit reduction | Democratic Presidents [Also see this data |
| Real Disposable Personal Income Growth per year 1953-2001 | Dan Ackman, Forbes.com | 3.65% | 3.08% | Democratic Presidents |
| Employment gains per year 1953-2001 | Dan Ackman, Forbes.com | 1.684 million/year | 1.279 million/year | Democratic Presidents |
| Unemployment: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the BLS | 5.1 % | 6.75 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Unemployment: 1947-2001 Assuming that each President's policies took effect 1 year after his inauguration | Larry Bartels, Los Angeles Times | 4.8 % | 6.3 % | Democratic Presidents (trend similar if 2 year shift assumed) |
| Unemployment: 1948-2001 Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office | CalPundit, using data from the BLS | 3-yr lag: 5.06 % 4-yr lag: 5.04 % 5-yr lag: 5.01% | 3-yr lag: 6.16 % 4-yr lag: 6.18 % 5-yr lag: 6.21 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Average After-Tax Return on Tangible Capital: Jan 1952 - June 2004 | Roger Altman, Wall Street Journal (data from Federal Reserve) | 4.3% | 3.2% | Democratic Presidents [For a Bush I + Bush II vs. Clinton comparison, see here] |
| GDP growth: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the BEA | 3.9 % | 2.9 % | Democratic Presidents |
| GDP growth: 1948 - 2001 Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office | CalPundit, using data from the BEA | 3-yr lag: 3.56 % 4-yr lag: 3.78 % 5-yr lag: 3.71 % | 3-yr lag: 3.35 % 4-yr lag: 3.16 % 5-yr lag: 3.21 % | Democratic Presidents |
| GDP growth: 1930-2000 | Carol Vinzant in Slate | 5.4% | 1.6 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Inflation: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the BLS | 4.26 % | 4.96 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Inflation: 1948-2001 Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office | CalPundit, using CPI data from Economagic | 3-yr lag: 3.33 % 4-yr lag: 3.07 % 5-yr lag: 3.20 % | 3-yr lag: 4.36 % 4-yr lag: 4.60 % 5-yr lag: 4.48 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 | 6.96 % | 7.57 % | Democratic Presidents if lower Govt. spending is better; Republican Presidents if higher spending is better Note, however, that |
| Percentage growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 | 8.34 % | 10.08 % | Democratic Presidents if lower Govt. spending is better; Republican Presidents if higher spending is better Note, however, that |
| Non-defense Federal Government Employees: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 | Rose by 59,000 (16 % of total rise over 40 years) | Rose by 310,000 (84% of total rise over 40 years) | Democratic Presidents (assuming smaller Govt. is better) |
| Yearly budget deficit: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 | $36 billion | $190 billion | Democratic Presidents |
| Increase in National Debt: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 See follow-up by P.L.A. | Total debt increased by $0.72 trillion (20 years) | Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion (20 years) | Democratic Presidents |
| Annual stock market return: 1927 (through) 1998 | Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov Research Paper, UCLA (via Atrios) Results are "statistically significant" Also reported by | ~ 11% (value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill) | ~ 2% (value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill) | Democratic Presidents (Delta increases to 16% for The study says: |
| Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000 | Carol Vinzant in Slate | 12.3 % (S&P 500) | 8.0 % (S&P 500) | Democratic Presidents |
| Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000 | Carol Vinzant in Slate | Democratic Senate 10.5 % (S&P 500) Democratic House 10.9 % (S&P 500) | Republican Senate 9.4 % (S&P 500) Republican House 8.1 % (S&P 500) | Democratic Senate or House (but see article for qualifications) |
| Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000 | Stock Traders' Almanac as reported by Carol Vinzant in Slate | 13.4 % (Dow) | 8.1 % (Dow) | Democratic Presidents |
| Rankings for highest GDP growth, biggest increase in jobs, biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes, biggest rise in hourly wages, lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment), etc. (until 2001) | Arthur Blaustein, Mother Jones | N/A. But all these best case metrics were under Democratic Presidents | N/A | Democratic Presidents |
其实说到底美国真正花自己的钱（就是大家的税钱）去打仗的金额并不大，大部分都是国债，我们中国纳税人的钱占了大部分。。
我觉得american dream不是一个统一的概念，每个人的都不一样。这样才最符合american dream的精神。
最小政府干涉的自由竞争我相信也是很多人来到美国发展的motivation一部分。
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-11 13:20:56编辑过]
其实共和党就布什一家子爱打仗
想想当年的里根兵不血刃搞垮了苏联
关键美国死一个人，国内叫得不行，媒体又都很左。其实战争哪能不死人的。
而且，bush打得不聪明，应该美国提供装备，地方组织力量，提供人力。
这是谁写的啊
里根执政八年间的丰功伟绩怎么一点都不提
Don't take foreign reports seriously and the rule applies to all countries =)
到底了
Hot Deals
All Deals