And tax cuts do not provide more revenue to the government. Period. End of subject. The CBO realizes this, many conservative pundits don't.

“Higher prices for imports (even oil) tend to reduce the consumption of said imports and increase the desire for domestically produced products.” This is only partially true. Domestically produced oil, even if you could start it pumping tomorrow would barely touch the price of oil in the world market and oil is a world market. There just isn't enough in the U.S. that can be pumped economically at low price points. This ties into the accusations against Clinton and the Democrats because at the price of oil 12 years ago permits weren't an issue because the companies weren't interested in actually drilling at the prices back then. As for oil shale, there are no economical extraction methods at this point that aren't environmental disasters. Oil companies are still experimenting with methods for extracting oil from oil shale and are years away from it. Nothing to do with public lands and permits, everything to do with the technology and resources (Current highly imperfect methods would require huge amounts of water, which the American West is running very short on now.). And then comes the real biggy as to why jwest is wrong in his statement. It's really Econ 101, the price elasticity of demand.

The key part of this is

The demand for a good is relatively inelastic when the quantity demanded does not change much with the price change. Goods and services for which no substitutes exist are generally inelastic. Demand for an antibiotic, for example, becomes highly inelastic when it alone can kill an infection resistant to all other antibiotics. Rather than die of an infection, patients will generally be willing to pay whatever is necessary to acquire enough of the antibiotic to kill the infection.

We have built a country around cheap energy and especially cheap gasoline. Combining the real estate crash, a recent history of flat real income for many people and a very fast increase in gas costs means there just isn't much that can be done in terms of adapting to the new realities. People can not take that driving vacation. They can stop going to the mall across town. They can't stop commuting to work. Most can't afford to just instantly switch vehicles to a more gas sipping model. Those who want to but need to dump their gas guzzler first in today's market have a real problem. So while petroleum products aren't perfectly inelastic in pricing they are closer to perfectly inelastic than to unitary elastic.

I will believe a progressive really cares about the economy or the environment when they finally put an end to open borders and unlimited immigration. As long as progressive support open borders and unlimited immigration, they do not care about the economy, quality of life for Americans, or the environment.

A) Last time I checked the people who are supposed to enforce immigration laws work for a Republican President.

B) Last time I checked most of the people employing said illegals were businesses who have done everything they could to break Unions and hire illegals because if they hired Americans to do those jobs, they would be dealing with Unions within a couple of years

See Mother Jones – The Chain Never Stops,
<a href=”http://capitalpress.com/Main.asp?SectionID=94&ArticleID=42948″>Meatpacking plant raid prompts immigration reform rally

Immigration Charges for Meatpacking Managers

DES MOINES — Two supervisors at an Iowa meatpacking plant that was raided by immigration agents in May were arrested and charged with encouraging people to live in the United States illegally.

Juan Carlos Guerrero-Espinoza, 35, and Martin De La Rosa-Loera, 43, were also charged Thursday with aiding and abetting the possession and use of fraudulent identification. Guerrero-Espinoza was charged with aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft.
…
Critics have asked federal officials why no top executives at the plant had been arrested, even though more than a third of the plant's employees faced immigration charges.

I am sure all those employers & recruiters are liberal.

Not to spoil the suspense too much, but here are the basic conclusions. Since Franklin Roosevelt’s third term (1941–44), Democrats have generally presided over faster growth and stronger stock markets than Republicans; Republican administrations have been friendlier for disinflation and the bond market. Also, Republicans tend to preside over recessions early in their terms, with growth accelerating as time passes; Democrats tend to preside over earlier accelerations followed by slowdowns as the term matures.

…
Over the long sweep of history, the distribution of income in the U.S. became more equal from the early 1930s through the late 1960s, and has been growing more unequal ever since. But there are some partisan patterns to this story. On average, inequality has risen in Republican administrations, and fallen in Democratic ones. Bucking the long-term trend, inequality rose slightly during the Eisenhower years. And while not quite bucking the trend, it rose more slowly in the Carter and Clinton years than it did under Nixon, Reagan, or George H.W. Bush.

The Bush administration, a standard Republican Administration, the better off you are the more you get, the poorer you are the more screwed you get.

Part of the cost in your food is due to the ethanol program. It has pushed corn prices to records levels. Who has been pushng ethanol?

Gasoline is more expensive because there is no economic way in the U.S. to replace it or even to develop domestic energy sources. The Democrats tried to us the price of natural gasoline to put the nuclear power companies out of business and that program backfired.

I will believe a progressive really cares about the economy or the environment when they finally put an end to open borders and unlimited immigration. As long as progressive support open borders and unlimited immigration, they do not care about the economy, quality of life for Americans, or the environment.

There is no excuse for the spending that happened under Bush. With both the republican and democrat congresses, he should have vetoed the bloated spending bills.

I support the war and think it’s worth every dime, so there’s no need arguing that point.

Enron management did lean republican; however, Bear Stearns and WorldCom management supported democrats more than the right. Fannie and Freddie are both strictly democrat creations, run by democrats and protected by democrats.

The easy credit policies over the last few years have enabled millions of people to purchase a home who would have never qualified under old rules. Sure, some are going to default and lose their house, but the vast majority will hang on and be building equity.

People think the country is going in the wrong direction because that is what the MSM is telling them. When asked if they are doing OK, they answer yes, but when asked how they think their neighbor is doing, they think he’s going broke.

Second, Enron went bankrupt in 2001. Worldcom went bankrupt in 2002. They are examles of the failures of the Clnton Administration.

In the short run, a lower dollar hurts the U.S. but it mus be killing China right now since there trade surplus with the U.S. will begin to collapse.

Jwest,

Ask them what the Obama Administration will do to improve the economy. does anyone really believe that limiting carbon emissions is going to help the private sector. Does anyone believe that nationalizing healthcare (indirectly) will help the economy?

I don’t blame Bush for the gas prices. I do blame Clinton and democrats in congress for blocking domestic drilling 12 years ago which would have supplemented supply and reduced prices today.

Why do you think 80% of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction? Is it because Bush is doing such a great job? I suspect you are one of those people who if the country entered a complete depression this fall with 30% unemployment and bankruptcies galore would still stand up to clap for your G-d, George W. Bush.

Certainly I understand the cyclical nature of the economy, but again I believe that no real gains have been made under Bush.

Is your argument that Bill Clinton was a lucky president? I know Al Gore created the internet, but did Bill Clinton develop the technology that led to the stock bubble at the end of his term? Was there some policy I missed that he instituted that made everyone think Tube Socks Dot Com was worth more than General Electric?

Does the “stockboy” refer to supermarket shelves?

So, what’s wrong with that?

Would you rather have a strong dollar so that U.S. made products and services were uncompetitively expensive to the rest of the world? How does that help?

Is the correlary not obvious? As in… the cost of imports goes up radically for us. Think oil, for starters.

A cheap dollar makes our exports more affordable to the rest of the world. The results are more jobs and lower trade deficits.