Bush in trouble?

[JediBoricua]

I honestly think that the last month has been the worse for this administration so far.

Let's do a quick recount from memory:

-Bush's approval rating has dropped to the low 50's. An all time low for this once 'very popular' president, especially if you compare it to where his father stood at this same moment on his presidency. Bush Sr. had a 60+ rating at this time on '91.

-The CIA leak scandal. What a mess, a high profile mess that could splash Karl Rover and the White House itself. Yesterday the Justice Department said it will investigate the White House.

-The Democratic primary has finally been getting some headlines. With the entrance of Gen. Clark, more people are paying attention to what is happening at the donkey camp. As of right now Kerry and Clark (according to a recent poll) would beat Bush, and Dean would loose by less that 5%.

-The economy. Need I say more? This was the year when all was supposed to rebound, it hasn't happened. Add to that the biggest deficit in US history, and all the money the Iraq occupation is sucking out of the treasury.

-And of course Iraq. This has a few ramifications, first and foremost the'weapons of mass destruction', where are they? In Bush's state of the union address, not in Iraq. Second, the inability of Bush to persuade the UN (after he made a ridicule of it) to help carry the burden of the post-war Iraq. Third, the fact that there seems to be no plan for Iraq, no plan for a new government, and no timetable for when the occupation will end. Finally, anti-US sentiment grows exponentially in Iraq, terrorist strike every other day, and americans keep dying in the desert.


So what do you guys think? Can Bush pull out of this hole and win the election, or will he be facing a tough campaign next year.

[CMJ]

It's really too early to say. His approval rating is similar to where Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon's were at similar times in their preidencies. All won re-election.

[ReaperFett]

-The CIA leak scandal. What a mess, a high profile mess that could splash Karl Rover and the White House itself. Yesterday the Justice Department said it will investigate the White House.
Peh, you just had to copy us ;)



I think he is borderline. If he messes up in the time left he's out, otherwise he's in. He doesn't have a safety cushion any more.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well the democrats will have to find a candiadate that can win. Right now Clark might be the best bet, I think Kerry and Edwards could too. Dean would be the worst candidate he is too liberal and probably can't win.

[Darth Viscera]

It's too early to tell what Bush's approval ratings will be come November '04, but no matter what happens, I'm not voting for General Ripper....errr, sorry, I mean General Clark. That maniac is an unhinged, tactless warmonger who was too concerned about grappling for power to be a proper General. If he's elected President, we'll be embroiled in World War IV.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think you are nuts to think that, the only thing he did was argue we should be going into Rwanda and I don't blame them that was European Biased, we help out in Bosnia but ignored the africans.

[Dutchy]

I'd say put him in the Hall of Shame, next to his father. :) No to diss his father, coz he was okay.

Hey Darth Viscera, no thoughts on Iraq?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
It's too early to tell what Bush's approval ratings will be come November '04, but no matter what happens, I'm not voting for General Ripper....errr, sorry, I mean General Clark. That maniac is an unhinged, tactless warmonger who was too concerned about grappling for power to be a proper General. If he's elected President, we'll be embroiled in World War IV.


AND WHAT THE HELL IS RUMSFIELD THEN???????

I honestly cant believe you say that about a man who actually has quite a good international reputation. I'd rather have him than the present warmongering idiots.

I dont mind Bush actually. It's his advisors like Rice and Rumsfiled that need to be thrown out. In any other country, I would think Bush would be in far deeper trouble..... his administration does not look good from here.

My summary of Bush - good man, badly advised.

[Jedieb]

General follows presidential orders and conducts military actions under international coalitions and he's a war monger. President goes off and lauches an invasion in the face of world wide opposition with a laughable 'coalition of the willing' and he's something to be admired? Right.......:rolleyes

[Marcus Telcontar]

Said General also managed to execute the campain without loss of allied life AFAIK. And I understand was wided lauded for how it was done. And I understand is widely admired in Europe for his views.

I have more fear of the present Administration starting WWIV, they were the ones seriously talking about using nukes as a viable weaopn. Now that scares me.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah Clark was noted for that fact that in the Bosnia campaigned no American troop died, that is something to look at. Some people have called him the Democrats version of Ike, of course Clark didn't command forces in a world war, but I can see some comparrisons to him.

[Pierce Tondry]

I think it would do the country good to have a president who spent four years focusing on matters at home and stuck to his goals. At this point, I feel we've overextended ourselves and there's too much helter-skelter action going on. I'd like to see major American interest groups sitting down and working on making the homeland secure in ways other than militarily for a change.

That'll be the day, though.

Call me insane, but at this stage in history I think the US government would do far better as a general oversight and coordination body rather than an economic police or a platform for social reform. <--- (errant thought of the day)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah we are too overstretched I agree, and being focused too much overseas has hurt the economy in my opinion, I think the economy might be the downfall for Bush.

[Pierce Tondry]

The economy sucking monkeytail has been the downfall of several presidents, even if it wasn't their fault- sorta like Grey Davis wasn't directly responsible for California's energy crisis, but is nonetheless held accountable since he's the overseeing Big Cheese.

One might say that Bush has done nothing for the economy, but that could easily be countered by someone arguing that making the world a safer place militarily does something indefinable for the economy. I'm inclined to think that one of the reasons he is in his current situation is because he's been focusing on goals with noble intentions and unmeasurable immediate success. I also think that'll likely be a factor in the upcoming election; if Bush is challenged to prove he's made things better, all he has to point to are a string of iffy (and largely unpopular) acts. Anyone with any kind of proven record can be financially backed to a strong victory.

Or so it seems to me, anyway.

[Marcus Telcontar]

but that could easily be countered by someone arguing that making the world a safer place

But the problem is, is the world a genuinely safer place after the last few military actions?

IMO, terrorism isnt somethign that you can fight with a gun, but it is somethign you can fight by removign the base cause for terrorists to gain support. eg, how many Palestinians are going to want to blwo themselves up if they have jobs, food and security?

It seems to me the real solutions are hard and take political decisions that DONT lead to leveling a village with cluster bombs.

I dont know in the end, I'm not the one witht he power to do anything.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah I agree Marcus, you can do more good by getting these people to read and write than by killing them.

[Darth Viscera]

Do none of you recall the time when General Clark gave the order to bomb the Russians back during Bosnia, and the British General under him wisely replied "I'm not going to start World War III for you"?

He wanted to BOMB the RUSSIANS. I'm sorry, but nothing can possibly redeem him for wanting to reduce most of the world to radioactive cinders. Say what you want about Rumsfeld, but although this winter is starting to look cold, it's not a nuclear winter.

I don't want my president going toe to toe in nuclear combat with the Russkis, thank you very much. Keep that warmonger out of the White House.

[Sanis Prent]

If Clark doesn't try to throw some leftist monkey-wrench into the economy, I just might end up voting for him. I'm kinda torn on it. I hate Bush's homeland security / patriot act farce, but on other matters, I feel he's been a success. If Clark offers to fix HS, but not cluster-funk anything else, it could be close.

[Jedi Master Carr]

DV I have no clue what you are talking about. The Russians were are on our side during that crisis they voted for peacekeepers you must be thinking of WW 1 that was the last time Russia helped out Serbia.

[Sanis Prent]

Carr, I think you need to look again. The Russians drug their heels through that entire incident.

[imported_Eve]

Bush has my vote, always. Can you imagine Gore in the white house right now? Jees.

Hussein needed to be removed and I don't care if the excuse is that he combed his hair the wrong way. He was horrible and no one disagrees with this. The fact that people argue over the motivations is just petty human PC arguing (because there isn't a good soap opera to watch at the moment). The heart of the matter is true and right, so what is your problem?

There are several resolutions in the UN that ALL countries sign and agree to and yet America (and usually the UK) are the only ones that ever step up to the plate. Example: Kuwait and the Gulf War.

Don't stand as one in the UN against the US, because it's all BS and will only show how ineffective the UN actually is. The UN is in disagreement over things, but the US acted. All the UN has done is whine about it. Our trade relations haven't been hurt. At the end of the day, no one will sacrifice their trade relationships with the US over this because they're just too valuable, and the US isn't someone you want as an enemy - we have more in common with you than other countries including major religion and custom (and that counts). Who has more power/infulence here? You tell me. So quit wasting our time; quit griping, and help build Iraq (since you're interested in their oil).

Oh, were we rude before? There is no whining in world politics.

The economy isn't the fault of Bush. There is a thing called the stock-market to which most idiots freak out about everytime there is a trade center collapse or there is a trading scandal. Bush can't control when you decided to sell your lot of stock. He can't control when you're too freaked out to buy, other than infulence lower interest rates - which happened and happened.

Elementary econ 101 tells you when the market sucks, you lower interest rates. And they were low. But people didn't spend, and that had nothing to do with Bush or the white house. It stemmed from 9-11 and other trading controversies.

THIS is what people don't get: these things influenced the economy and THAT is why Bush is so adamant about fighting against it. There is nothing more important than stopping another 9-11 from happening because it's effects were longer standing that a trade center collapse. That's hard for even Americans to understand because of their lack of education, much less foreigners who didn't feel the effects in their own home.

Wake up people.

I really wish people would have an education in economics and stop getting all their arguments from the liberally biased media. I guarentee that if you read ONE econ book, you'd feel differently about a lot of things.

[ReaperFett]

There are several resolutions in the UN that ALL countries sign and agree to and yet America (and usually the UK) are the only ones that ever step up to the plate. Example: Kuwait and the Gulf War.
I believe I'm correct in saying there were many countries in the original gulf war, it is just that the US sent more. Also I believe the US and the UK signed a UN resolution that a regime change was NOT cause for a war.

[Preacher Blake]

Originally posted by Eve
The economy isn't the fault of Bush. There is a thing called the stock-market to which most idiots freak out about everytime there is a trade center collapse or there is a trading scandal. Bush can't control when you decided to sell your lot of stock. He can't control when you're too freaked out to buy, other than infulence lower interest rates - which happened and happened.

Elementary econ 101 tells you when the market sucks, you lower interest rates. And they were low. But people didn't spend, and that had nothing to do with Bush or the white house. It stemmed from 9-11 and other trading controversies.

THIS is what people don't get: these things influenced the economy and THAT is why Bush is so adamant about fighting against it. There is nothing more important than stopping another 9-11 from happening because it's effects were longer standing that a trade center collapse. That's hard for even Americans to understand because of their lack of education, much less foreigners who didn't feel the effects in their own home.

Wake up people.

I really wish people would have an education in economics and stop getting all their arguments from the liberally biased media. I guarentee that if you read ONE econ book, you'd feel differently about a lot of things.


<3 marry me.

Nothing steams me more than people who think that there's some kind of correlation between a president and our economy's performance. Monetary policy is the Fed's baby, and they aren't going to give a damn what the president wants to do. Fiscal policy? Still not his baby...thats Congress. Notice that the prez has no power, other than to suggest something for the fiscal budget. So if you don't like the way we're handling fiscal policy, try electing another representative or senator first. They're the ones behind that deal.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Sorry I don't like Bush and I won't vote for him, but I am lifelong democrat so it would be against my principals :p

[Jedi Master Carr]

Okay Charlie I think I am confunsing the Kosovo and Bosnia situations. I was tired when I posted that (watching a 4 hour baseball game will do that to you) I remember Russia pressuring Serbia during Kosovo and they really stayed ouf of that one. In the Bosnia deal there may have been some heal dragging but they were under intense presure from the U.S, France, UK, and Germany to not use their Veto in the UN, I am not certain if they voted for it, they may have just abstained or something. Still I don't think they had their troops anywhere near Serbia, I mean the Ukrainie is closer and and I don't think Russian troops marched through the Ukraine borders. DV I bet you misheard or misread it was probably Serbian (or Yugoslav which ever you prefer) that threanted because I remember they were saber rattling over the Bosnia issue and Clark may have said we will bomb their troops if they cross the border which IMO he had ever right to do.

[jjwr]

I really dislike Bush and I really really really hope that the Democrats put someone up against him that can take him down. Course with the way Bush is going now it may not be that hard.

Anyone have a favorite Democratic candidate? I personally like Dean, but being from Vermont I'm a bit biased. He was a great Governor and I think he'll do very well as President. I don't agree with all of his views but he's a good enough that he could do well. Heck he couldn't do any worse than Bush has.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am not sure about Dean, I think he might be too liberal to win, but I could be wrong. My favorite candidate is Kerry but I think Clark might be the best of the democrat candiates because he is a moderate.

[Preacher Blake]

I didn't vote for Bush in the last election, but I don't have any major qualm against voting for him in this one. Right now, I'm still feeling out my options.

Kerry would be one of the last people I'd vote for. I really dislike him.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I kind of like Kerry but that is just me.

[Darth Viscera]

Carr, your neverending protests in the face of well-known facts will never cease to shock me.



August 2, 1999
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who is stepping down early as NATO supreme commander, clashed with British commander Gen. Mike Jackson over how to react to the movement of Russian forces in Kosovo after the alliance's victory there, sources say.

Pentagon and NATO sources told CNN that Clark ordered Jackson, the commander of NATO ground forces in Kosovo, to dispatch helicopters to take control of Pristina's airport before the Russians arrived June 12.

Jackson reportedly favored a less confrontational approach and was slow to relay Clark's orders. As a result, Apache helicopters were unable to reach the airport because of bad weather.

After the Russians took control of one end of the airport, Pentagon sources say Clark ordered Jackson to move British tanks onto the runway to prevent Russia from flying in reinforcements.

This time, Jackson delayed while he sought political guidance from London. Clark also appealed to political leaders in Washington for support, the U.S. magazine Newsweek reported Sunday.

Clark's orders were never carried out. "I'm not going to start World War III for you," Jackson is quoted in Newsweek as telling Clark after the incident.

Reports: Jackson won standoff

Pentagon officials told CNN that while NATO members are under the command of the supreme allied commander, they also have the right to refuse orders not in their national interest.

NATO's 19 members operate by consensus and any one country can veto a decision.

Pentagon officials said that the British government wanted to avoid a military confrontation over what was essentially a diplomatic dispute with the Russians.

The airport standoff was ultimately resolved when NATO and Moscow, a traditional ally of the Serbs, agreed that the Russians would not have their own peacekeeping sector in Kosovo.

Instead, Russian peacekeepers were dispatched to the American, French and British sectors of the province.

Clark denies reports

During his weekly visit to Kosovo on Monday, Clark denied news reports of conflict between himself and Jackson over the Russian incident, or any other.

"I haven't seen (that) any of the reports are particularly accurate thus far," Clark said. "I have total confidence in Mike Jackson. We have a really good working relationship, and I think he's doing a brilliant job down there in Kosovo."

Clark will step down as NATO supreme commander three months early on orders from Washington. He will retire in April, rather than July of next year, to make room for Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, now the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Clark, considered brilliant but arrogant and brusque, described the move as routine, as did the White House and the Pentagon.

"All of us at NATO believe Gen. Clark has been outstanding ... winning very decisively the air operation in Kosovo," Pentagon spokesman Jamie Shea said last week.

Change General Clark to General Ripper, General Jackson to Group Captain Mandrake and you've got Dr. Strangelove.

[Charley]

He seems like an Arriana Huffington political trainwreck. His entire claim to presidency is "bash the bush" bandwagoning. I haven't seen a single fresh thought come out of him, and he wasn't exactly great in the senate, either.

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Eve
Bush has my vote, always. Can you imagine Gore in the white house right now? Jees.

Hussein needed to be removed and I don't care if the excuse is that he combed his hair the wrong way. He was horrible and no one disagrees with this. The fact that people argue over the motivations is just petty human PC arguing (because there isn't a good soap opera to watch at the moment). The heart of the matter is true and right, so what is your problem?

There are several resolutions in the UN that ALL countries sign and agree to and yet America (and usually the UK) are the only ones that ever step up to the plate. Example: Kuwait and the Gulf War.

Don't stand as one in the UN against the US, because it's all BS and will only show how ineffective the UN actually is. The UN is in disagreement over things, but the US acted. All the UN has done is whine about it. Our trade relations haven't been hurt. At the end of the day, no one will sacrifice their trade relationships with the US over this because they're just too valuable, and the US isn't someone you want as an enemy - we have more in common with you than other countries including major religion and custom (and that counts). Who has more power/infulence here? You tell me. So quit wasting our time; quit griping, and help build Iraq (since you're interested in their oil).

Oh, were we rude before? There is no whining in world politics.

The economy isn't the fault of Bush. There is a thing called the stock-market to which most idiots freak out about everytime there is a trade center collapse or there is a trading scandal. Bush can't control when you decided to sell your lot of stock. He can't control when you're too freaked out to buy, other than infulence lower interest rates - which happened and happened.

Elementary econ 101 tells you when the market sucks, you lower interest rates. And they were low. But people didn't spend, and that had nothing to do with Bush or the white house. It stemmed from 9-11 and other trading controversies.

THIS is what people don't get: these things influenced the economy and THAT is why Bush is so adamant about fighting against it. There is nothing more important than stopping another 9-11 from happening because it's effects were longer standing that a trade center collapse. That's hard for even Americans to understand because of their lack of education, much less foreigners who didn't feel the effects in their own home.

Wake up people.

I really wish people would have an education in economics and stop getting all their arguments from the liberally biased media. I guarentee that if you read ONE econ book, you'd feel differently about a lot of things.

Ironically enough, I'm plowing through a couple of college courses that are leading me in the direction of these perspectives- Poli Sci 103 and Econ 101 to be precise. I'm still pretty ignorant on both subjects, tho, so I don't speak with the authority Eve does yet.

Because I don't know much about government I don't intend to start suddenly getting involved across the board, but I am going to be making a thorough effort to inform myself on next year's elections and then vote. (It would be my first time, too. After this, I'd no longer be a virgin voter. :))

Insofar as Clark goes, what I have read of him does not make me have high hopes for him as a candidate. I wish I could remember word for word what one article said about him; suffice it to say I won't be voting for him.

Well, I'm off to make love to the Wall Street Journal with my eyes and glean sweet, sweet information. :)

Edit: I just remembered a "possible future with Gore in the White House" skit on SNL from a few years back. They had Gore teaching the American people how to do elementary math and had Clinton hanging around the White House like a bad roommate. So true, so true. :)

[Jedieb]

My favorite part of that skit was the Bush White House that had Dubya on the phone with his Dad saying; "Being President is hard!" Outside the window you could see the country in ruins. All this in just Dubya's 2nd week in office. So true, so true. :)

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedieb
My favorite part of that skit was the Bush White House that had Dubya on the phone with his Dad saying; "Being President is hard!" Outside the window you could see the country in ruins. All this in just Dubya's 2nd week in office. So true, so true. :)


Hyuk hyuk

[Jedi Master Carr]

That to me sounds like pretty normal routine the White house and Pentagon had nothing against it. Probably the White house wanted US forces in there first because they didn't want the Russians to cover up Serbian crimes. To me that whole story is nothing. Everybody in the military has nothing but good things to say of Clark.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
That to me sounds like pretty normal routine the White house and Pentagon had nothing against it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

He was dismissed from theater 3 months early because of that little attempt to dance on a needle in front of fate. Bastard should have not only been fired but dishonorably discharged as well, and he would have been if he weren't such good friends with Clinton.


Everybody in the military has nothing but good things to say of Clark.

What?!?! Is today opposite day or something? Let me enlighten you with a few excerpts:


Colonel David Hackworth:
""Known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince,' he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."


Col. Jatras writes that "General Clark is the kind of general we saw too often during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in a position of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the security of our nation. That it happened once again we can thank that other Rhodes scholar from Arkansas."


"The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994.


Such strong reactions are common. A major in the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado when Clark was in command there in the early 1980s described him as a man who "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JAT309A.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg107690.html

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well that is not what I have heard from CNN, the USA Today, the NY Times, etc I rely on them for my sources of news they all have said good things about him.

[Charley]

Who exactly?

Viscera gave names. I trust names over media companies.

[Jedieb]

Hyuk hyuk
Note to self:
I've got to get my hands on this humor filter that some people have! You know, the one that allows you to find only certain parts of politcal skits funny. Apparently, only HALF of the sketch was funny! Man, I feel silly for laughing at BOTH the Gore and Dubya impersations and jokes. If I had my humor filter I only would have laughed at the candidate I didn't vote for!
:rolleyes

[JediBoricua]

Okay Eve I don't get it then. At first Bush is the most powerful man in the world, but then he has no control over his economy...

I'm on my third year of my economics degree, and granted I'm no expert, i'm mostly going to quote what my professors have told me in the past two years. You quote basic econ courses, well basic econ courses suppose that there is no government, no money and no extragenous factors that affect markets, thus they all run efficiently. Obviously this is not true in real life.

The stock market is independent, the FED is independent, we all agree there. But do you think that having the largest deficit in US history does not affect the market? Don't tell that is Congress responsability, because the one asking 85 billion dollars for Iraq, the one that gave a few hundred billion in tax cuts to the rich, and the one who signs the budget is THE PRESIDENT.

The market is also shook by national and world politics. Terrorism affect the market, but most of all uncertainty affects the market. And today in Iraq, in Israel, and in every major city of the US there is uncertainty.

I believe Bush is making a lousy job, most analysts agree that this year the economy would rebound, it has not a happened. I cannot vote for the President, but I can vote in the Dem. primary, and I'm still undecided but the General is gaining on me.

[Pierce Tondry]

basic econ courses suppose that there is no government, no money and no extragenous factors that affect markets, thus they all run efficiently.

I really have not gotten this impression from my professor. She's basically said at certain points "here's where something else can potentially affect things, but that gets covered later/by someone else". Plus we've covered the potential for a market to be inefficient straight up.


But do you think that having the largest deficit in US history does not affect the market? Don't tell that is Congress responsability, because the one asking 85 billion dollars for Iraq, the one that gave a few hundred billion in tax cuts to the rich, and the one who signs the budget is THE PRESIDENT.

Point: Bush is asking for money for Iraq. Congress still has final say.

Question: Isn't signing the budget equivalent to signing a law- the President does not have direct control over what gets passed, but still has token involvement as head of the executive?

Statement: I really am clueless over how the tax cut process works, but I do know the US government/IRS has a much different definition of the word "rich" than we do and I don't think that's necessarily a good comparison.


The market is also shook by national and world politics. Terrorism affect the market, but most of all uncertainty affects the market. And today in Iraq, in Israel, and in every major city of the US there is uncertainty.

I really think there'd be a lot more uncertainty if no military action had been taken post-9/11 and we were sitting on our duffs waiting for the terrorists to strike again.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Note to self:
I've got to get my hands on this humor filter that some people have! You know, the one that allows you to find only certain parts of politcal skits funny. Apparently, only HALF of the sketch was funny! Man, I feel silly for laughing at BOTH the Gore and Dubya impersations and jokes. If I had my humor filter I only would have laughed at the candidate I didn't vote for!
:rolleyes

Hey I got one for you!

Take a joke, repeat it FOUR BILLION TIMES, and see if its still funny. It isn't. I don't give a damn what its about. I hated the Clinton/Lewinsky jokes in the late nineties with equal vitriol.

I didn't vote for Bush btw, Captain Comedy.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but I would like to read the whole article and note stupid quotes. You see I don't trust stuff like that especially when hearing from mainstream newspapers. And they aren't just media companies, they are the news and if you can't trust them that who can you trust.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Yeah but I would like to read the whole article and note stupid quotes. You see I don't trust stuff like that especially when hearing from mainstream newspapers. And they aren't just media companies, they are the news and if you can't trust them that who can you trust.


I hope that was said in jest. You sir, make me worry for america.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Yeah but I would like to read the whole article and note stupid quotes.

So read the whole article. Jesus. Why do you think I provided links at the bottom of the page after providing the quotes?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I still disagree but I am not going to argue about it anymore.

[imported_Eve]

JB: Yeah, you don't get it. And most of your post made my point.

Cheers to your third year in econ! Hey, I have a degree in political science and economics, myself! So now that we know where we both stand in the education arena, can we continue?

Econ - there are truths, to which you basically reiterated after my post. Uncertanties do affect the market, related to terrorism. Or, the terrorism created the uncertainty. WHICH IS WHY Bush is trying to prevent it. Therefore, fighting it is a worthy and prominent cause. Get it? Because this is key.

Say Bush does nothing; spends no more money on stopping terrorism. Laden blows up the credit card companies next. People freak out, and the stock market takes another, more serious blow. Your 401K goes to hell, after several years of investment. Many people's investment and bank accounts get erased. Money goes no where and becomes unaccounted for. Banks don't have the money for people who do have records of their savings. Things collapse. It can happen, if we don't do something NOW. The price tag today is cheaper than what would happen if nothing is done.

You act like Bush killed your sister. He is just trying to protect everyone. The man cried when the trade centers got hit, and you want to put some malicious purpose behind his budget for Iraq. C'mon now. He is LEADING. He is doing some major preventative maintenance. And you can't see it.

If you're not relating economic principles to real life scenarios yet (in your third year) I wonder when you will. It's like being trained for Defense Against the Dark Arts without your wand.

The deficit - I love when people try to pin this on ANY president. It was here before Bush, and it will be there when the next guy comes in. If he (the next guy) is a Democrat, will you blame it on him?

The thing is (and this is related to politics and trading), if we don't rebuild Iraq they could become dangerously rouge, and then this whole process was for not. We need to keep them on their feet, so they're a strong ally now and in the future. And yeah, it's neat that they have lotsa oil. It will be costly, but it's all forward thinking.

The President of the US doesn't have the power you give him over the US economy. If you think he is personally responsible for the market, then site me where it says in the US constitution that the President's powers will include being able to influence or force a country of free people to buy and sell. Really, the president does little more than lobby to the congress. Yeah he is a strong lobbiest, but in the end there are "Checks and Balances" that hold true. And THAT is a basic principle of politics in the US.

You, of anyone, should know the factors that affect the market and interest rates, and it is NOT the President.

[Pierce Tondry]

Say Bush does nothing; spends no more money on stopping terrorism. Laden blows up the credit card companies next. People freak out, and the stock market takes another, more serious blow. Your 401K goes to hell, after several years of investment.

Actually, this happened to my dad's 401K back in 2001. He'd divorced my mom two years previously and had to pay a lot out of his 401K investments, so those shrunk. When 9-11 happened, he lost a lot of what was still in there. We were really tight for awhile and he has less socked away for retirement now. :(


You act like Bush killed your sister. He is just trying to protect everyone. The man cried when the trade centers got hit, and you want to put some malicious purpose behind his budget for Iraq.

Yeah- what the hell? If we spent no money on Iraq, we'd be utterly derided in the international community as conquering buttmonkeys. How does cashing in to help them rebuild lives that have been shattered by a maniacal dictator and worsened by war turn into a bad thing?


If you're not relating economic principles to real life scenarios yet (in your third year) I wonder when you will. It's like being trained for Defense Against the Dark Arts without your wand.

Ahem. *ROFLs hard.* This is too funny.


The deficit - I love when people try to pin this on ANY president. It was here before Bush, and it will be there when the next guy comes in. If he (the next guy) is a Democrat, will you blame it on him?

Ever since deficit spending was accepted as rational economic policy, we've had one. The only thing that can really be done is to keep it modest, but I think we've had some pretty extenuating circumstances for deficit increases during the Bush term.

That's all I've got for the evening. :)

[Jedieb]

Originally posted by Agent Charley
Hey I got one for you!

Take a joke, repeat it FOUR BILLION TIMES, and see if its still funny. It isn't. I don't give a damn what its about. I hated the Clinton/Lewinsky jokes in the late nineties with equal vitriol.

I didn't vote for Bush btw, Captain Comedy.
I'm trying to see where I repeated that SNL quote 4 millions times....... Oh, and thanks for the promotion! I've always wanted to be an officer!

[Charley]

You seem to have added a you to my quote that wasn't there. If that's the best jab you've got, stop eating bandwidth now.

[Master Yoghurt]

New Exciting development in Iraq:

<a href=http://www.bbspot.com/politics/News/2003/10/galactic_empire.html>Galactic Empire to Take Over Power in Iraq</a>

[Darth Viscera]

Cracka please! The moment the Emperor starts despairing because the country is being suicide bombed faster than a Chinese restaurant in Medina, he'll bring down the Death Star, and indiscriminately blast our planet into fine specks of taco shells.

[JediBoricua]

*ignore this one, Bush made me double post*

[JediBoricua]

First of all I have never advocated for the US to do nothing against terrorism. Not doing something would have been ten times worse. What I do not agree is the way some of the 'war against terrorism' has been handled. The way the effort has been undertaken has caused much more uncertainty, because Al-Quaeda and it's leader are still at large, anti-american sentiment brews throughout the world mostly in part because of Bush's policy, and Iraq/Afghanistan are still no-man lands where chaos and terrorism rule the day.

First and foremost, Iraq is a mess. After a brilliant military action (it was an impressive show of force), Iraq has become a very big mess and more dangerous than before. It gives the impression that the administration had no plan for post war Iraq. Add all that to the fact that Bush LIED (I really find it funny that Republicans made such a fuss because Clinton lied about his sex life on TV, yet they don't mention that Bush lied to the country in his state of the union address and engaged the country in war based on that 'white' lie), americans and iraqis are are dying every day.

Now if all this would have been handled differently, and true reasons for engaging war been presented, the whole world would have, through the UN, would have helped with the war effort, and more important with the reconstruction of Iraq.


Yeah- what the hell? If we spent no money on Iraq, we'd be utterly derided in the international community as conquering buttmonkeys

Obviously the US has to spend all it can on Iraq now, but without internation aid I'm afraid you have biten more than you can chew. The fiscal drag of reconstructing Iraq is going to hold down the economy and is the main reason, IMO, that the predicted recovery has not yet happened.

Now after EVe's brilliant comeback using the very obscure Harry Potter reference, it's time to relate economic principle to real life then...let's take Bush's tax cut (which according to Eve would have absolutely no effect on the economy, the same as the New Deal had absolutely no effect on the US in the 30's, etc. Hell why do candidates add economic issues in their platforms, if they will have no effect on the economy...:rolleyes).

The virtues of a tax cut are that all the money families save on taxes, they will spend thus moving the chains of the economy, right? Well why hasn't the economy rebounded after a 200 billion tax cut? Easy, because dubya's tax cut benefited the richest 10%, and not the middle class that is the one that buys cars, gets loans and mortgages, travel, etc. Bush tax cut (which was opposed by countless economist, including half a dozen nobel prize winners) only enriched the already filthy rich. They don't need to get mortgages, or buy cheap cars (because of the o-so low interest rates), hell for what is worth the tax cut barely affected them. Yet middle income families are still struggling with high electricity bill (Iraq anyone?), high medical insurance (did you know that the US, the greatest country in the world, has the most expensive health system, granted this is not Bush's fault, but he has done nothing to help), and a high level of unemployment, the highest in more than a decade.

But I forget, this is not Bush's fault, it's the market! Right....:x


Oh and about deficit, the last two FY of the Clinton administration enden in a surplus, so the budget has been balanced before, and by a free spending democrat that is...

Source: http://bullandbearwise.com/GovDefChart.asp

Actually, 2000 closed with a 162.5 billion surplus which Bush ate up and is now close to 475 billion (that chart only goes 'till 2001).

source: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=aoomu3l_aYQ0

So, no Bush has not killed my sister (hell I don't have one), but he has done a lousy job.

[Darth Viscera]

How could a $90 billion check for Iraq seriously impact a $10.7 trillion economy?

[JediBoricua]

Because you have a 475 billion government deficit (this figure excludes the new Iraq check). This fact alone means that the government will have to cut on some spending, possibly aid to financial ailing states, educational budgets, health budgets, etc.

True the US could repay that, hell they produce their own money don't they, but that would cause inflation, the devaluation of an already weak dollar, etc.

And by having such a monumental deficit, you are messing with the financial health of the government, thus affecting bonds and other government stocks. And how does the government deal with debt, they sell it through bonds. But if your bonds are not making any money, then you cannot sell your debt, and that debt is at this moment the highest it has ever been.

That bloomberg article I posted on the earlier post predicts a hike in interests rates soon because the government bonds are loosing to much value.

Here's a quote from the article:


Economist William Gale, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says the U.S. budget deficit will soar in coming years unless the government checks it now. As baby boomers begin to retire, the government will confront rising costs of medical care and other entitlements.

``The deficit is not the wolf at the door; it's more the termites in the woodwork,'' Gale says. If he's right, America's ballooning budget deficits may have only begun to gnaw at bond investors' wealth.

[Darth Viscera]

The U.S. National Debt is very depressing to look at. If you spread it out among our 133.5 million person employed labor force, that's $50,836.13 per person.

I wish all the jerks and terrorists in the world would leave us be for 10 years so we could pay our bills. No such luck.

[JediBoricua]

The truth you speak Visc.

[Preacher Blake]

Actually, we're looking more at a potential for impending deflation than we are inflation. Both are bad, but then again, for completely different reasons.

Another issue is that growth indicators have a sizeable lag report time. This means that our economy could very well be on the rebound, but the numbers that indicate it take up to several quarters to come in. One such number, which I can't readily remember, was actually posting a significant increase at last notice.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I love listeing to people argue economics and the theories. It reminds me of my lecturer in said subject who told us that the joke about putting 50 Economic pudits in a room and you will get 51 different opinions, each factual, resonable and based on truth and sound theories - and completely wrong.

The only real truth in economics is that it is a inprecise branch of mathematics, because it tries to create theory on human behaviour - which, admitted said lecturuer is almost impossible. He stated that what was the theory of the day would be rapidly superseded and that political leaders and world events have more influence over an economy than any other single factor. Chaos theory seemed to once be a good thing to use in Economics, because Econimcs at it's heart seems to be true chaotic cause / effect

Before I did get to Uni, the proof of how one man's words or one event could shake an otherwise sound looking economy to the core and set off a recession. It's a rather famous quote.

http://pl.net/~keithr/rfile00825NZdollar.html

Paul Keating and the Banana republic. Well all aussie remember THAT comment, because that one comment is said to be the direct cause of the collapse in the Aust dollar's value immediatly after the broadcast, plus set off the "recession we had to have". A rather nasty and deep one too, I recall.

Not fiscal policy, not theory, just one well placed comment.

George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden have more direct influence over whether peole buy and sell than any other factor, becasue they are immediate, known and understood. If Bush was to come out and say the Banana republic comment, it would have the exact same effect Keating's comment did, no matter the so called fundamentals underlying.

Saying Bush cant influence buy / sell is wrong. He can. To a huge degree. Words can have a remarkable effect. He could set off WWIII if he wanted to, just like Reagan almost did.


Now if all this would have been handled differently, and true reasons for engaging war been presented, the whole world would have, through the UN, would have helped with the war effort, and more important with the reconstruction of Iraq.

Quite true. I said it elsewhere, if the Bush admin had taken a different tact and done some political work, the present situation would have been avoided and they could have gone and kicked Hussein out of power with world support. The present unwillingness of the UN to now clean up the mess is a direct result of that lack of political work. Iraq, for better or worse is the sole responsibility of the aliied forces and no one else now. If the Allies dont like it, tough, they should have done some better political work before going in guns blazing.

where are the WMD?

Was Hussein really a threat?

Was he really supporting terrorism and Al-Quadia specifically?

why, did they Allies not build their case for war on real and good reasons, that existed? Why did they build their reasons on something less solid, that has now been blown away, leaving them with no real reason?

That's what WTF's me. A bit of political skill and this situation would not have arisen.