>>>>>>Frankly, the US economy is quite healthy as far as the long term is concerned. We have weathered 2 minor dip recessions and seen unprecedented growth since the early eighties without anything like the downturns of prior decades. Increased trade has lessoned the burden on Americans alone to consume our products and increased our exposure to lucrative foreign markets and vice versa.
>>>>>
>>>>>How could any economy be healthy (long term) with an ever increasing trade deficit ?? It stumps me.
>>>>
>>>>Then you should pay attention more.
>>>
>>>Please explain... I'm sure Mr. Robert Mugabe urgently wants to know.
>>
>>???
>>
>>>>>>The truth is there's no such thing as poor in America. While some may have less than others, in relation to the rest of the world, America's poor are wealthy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you been in Europe at all? In europe the poor have access to affordable healthcare.
>>>>>very enlighting when you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
>>>>
>>>>Your Euro-centric view of the world is showing. Think about the poor and destitute in Africa and Asia.
>>>
>>>I did not get the sense that you wanted to compare the US to third world countries. You're right the poot in third world countries are worse off.
>>>
>>>BTW, sure I'm showing an euro centric view here. We've got enough people over here showing the US centric view. If I'm not doing the euro-centric view, who is ?
>>
>>Good point. ;)
>>
>>>>>>The very idea that American's experience "hard times" economically is laughable. Only our spoiled, ignorant and arrogant populace could "feel" downtrodden while living in the greatest economic vehicle the world has ever known.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong. The EU is a substancial bigger economy than the US.
>>>>
>>>>The EU is not a country...yet and it is brand new. Let's give it a little time before declaring it a resounding success. It is just now going into its first test and we'll see what happens. Hence the original posting.
>>>
>>>You were not talking about countries, you were talking economic vehicles which the EU is. The EU has laws, a government and a currency. It is an economic onion (the forerunner of the EU was EEU which stands for European Economic Union).
>>>
>>>Whether the EU has proven itself, I can't tell. It has conquered its place in the financial markets. There are more euros going arround than US dollars and it is increasing its share on the reserve currency markets. It has survived the initial loss against the dollar impressively. but, the EU still has quite a few challenges ahead, like getting a consititution, its aging population, competition rising markets in asia. Time will tell.
>>
>>This was my point. While the EU's economy passed the US's last year, as a vehicle of economic prosperity, the US has been the driving force for decades. The EU may be the next driving force, to be replaced in 20 years by China. At this point it's all speculation as world events will likely disrupt what appears to be an obvious procession.
>>
>>>>>>Feelings are not fact despite Oprah's influence. Facts are facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>It seems that you have to get your facts right. You make a few blunt statements that are demonstratebly wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Your opinions are not facts. (trade deficit, EU size vs. time)
>>>
>>>Sorry, but I don't see any facts. Please tell me how can an economy with an ever increasing (huge) national debt be healthy?
>>
>>This has been discussed ad infinitum.
>>Since 2000 the US has navigated the 2001-2 recession , 9-11, Katrina, housing bubble/crash, subprime mess, 2 wars, oil spike/unwind, dollar devaluation and has maintained fairly even debt as % of gdp and minimal inflation. The recession that we should currently be in has not materialized. I'd say that's a pretty outstanding resume for a strong healthy economy.
>>
>>>>>>The dollar is rising. The oil trade is unwinding. Stocks successfully tested and bounced off the critical 11k line. The feds have jumped in with a boatload of bailout money. Exports are booming. Tourism is up.
>>>>>
>>>>>How could you draw that conlcusion on such limited day. A few weeks back the euro topped 1.60 USD? what is giving you the conclusion the oil trade is unwinding ? It it just too short to draw that conclusion.
>>>
>>>>I follow the markets daily and pay attention to technical indicators and patterns. The oil spike and retraction has followed some very well know trading patterns. The dollar has weathered the storm and is once again seen by investors as a profitable position for their money. As the dollar goes, the opposite happens to oil. I don't look at narrow time ranges, like one day as you implied, this oil trade has been working for over a year.
>>>
>>>Then I'm even more stumped. I don't see any trends the last couple of months supporting the conclusions you make here. As I said, a few weeks the euro topped 1.60 USD and the record for a barrel of oil isn't that long ago as well. With the elections at the door, I would not draw any of those conclusions, esspecially if mcCain gets elected.
>>
>>The dollar is just starting to come back, but it has passed some technical markers which look to be driving it up. The oil trade is unwinding, weather you choose to see the pattern or not, it's fairly obvious. Nigeria had another pipeline attack last week and Russia has invaded Georgia, similar events over the past year or so have caused a spike, yet oil continues to drop. Investors are moving their money out of oil.
>>
>>If you look at the recent history of the US our economy works best with divided leadership. Obama's spending plans would add untold billions more to our national deficit/debt. How can you judge our economic health by our debt on one hand and then assume that the biggest spender on the ballot will be better than a known spending hawk?
>
>IMO it's not clear at all that Obama is "the biggest spender on the ballot." Bush ran as a fiscal conservative, too, and look what he did to the debt. The two biggest inflammants to the debt have probably been the war in Iraq and tax cuts, both of which were Bush's decisions.
>
>Labeling Democrats big spenders is what Republicans always do, despite all evidence to the contrary. They just want to spend money on different things. The fact is that over the past 30 years the national debt has shot up under Republican administrations and declined during the 8 years under Clinton.

Princeton Political Scientist Larry Bartels agrees with you. See Economic Performance here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)