George W Bush: welcome to reality

[BadaBing]

ALHOLK said:

I doubt it as most Americans couldn't find Sweden on a map if their life depended on ot

 

Very true , but then again , why would we even think of looking for it Now if it were Switzerland , we could use the WMD excuse because of all those Swiss Army knives they are hiding over there....

 

Bada Bing

[enigma]

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

 

-- George Bush, April 20, 2004

[gummigut]

Hugh_Hoy said:

First, winning or losing a war doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about. Gonna cost the same.

...

Overall, Alky, I'd stay clear of any advice those sages in Europe you're talking about. Sounds like they don't know their *** from a hole in the ground.

 

The key point is the cost, and it's skyrocketing and pushing up the deficit.

 

"Alky" has a valid point. We're going to have to pay.

 

Can you please explain to me, with standard economic theory, about how this won't effect the US economy?

 

<<burp>>

[Hugh_Hoy]

gummigut said:

"Can you please explain to me, with standard economic theory, about how this won't effect the US economy?

 

<<burp>>

 

To answer your question in a single word: "no".

 

I already rebutted Alky's points which I characterize as being "wishful thinking" based on his dislike of the current administration.

 

Somebody made the comment about Clinton and his compromising of his "principals". I got a belly laugh out of that one. Clinton was probably one of the least "principaled" presidents that I can recall. Granted, he's intelligent, charismatic, glib...but "principaled"? Hardly. Didn't have an original idea and flip-flopped his entire way through two terms. He happened to be in the White House as the economy was about to take off. Nothing he did that I can tell to start it or prolong it. As for Carter...nice guy, probably one of the most honest politicians to hold the office; but in way over his head (similar to GW). Didn't help him that the U.S. economy was piss-poor during his term or that the Iranian's took over the U.S. Embassy. He wasn't helped by the bunch of buffoons he had in his cabinet, either.

 

"Over and out" on this one.

 

HH

 

Hugh

[Old Hippie]

"...the Iraqi's took over the U.S. Embassy. ..."

 

Typo or slip I know, but it was the Iranians...

[Hugh_Hoy]

Old Hippie said:

"...the Iraqi's took over the U.S. Embassy. ..."

 

Typo or slip I know, but it was the Iranians...

 

Yep. Thanks. Corrected. :bow:

 

HH

[gummigut]

Hugh_Hoy said:

To answer your question in a single word: "no".

 

I already rebutted Alky's points which I characterize as being "wishful thinking" based on his dislike of the current administration.

 

Look, the answer is "no" because you can't. Via economics Alky is right.

 

You didn't rebut Alky's point at all.

 

Now the world has historically (recent history) supported the US's continual mounting debt. But that's because it's the most productive/innovative economy in the World, but it ain't going to support the load that Bush jr is setting. It is unprecedented the debt he's putting on us. Now and in the future with his changes in taxation!

 

Your argument of the exchange rates is farcical at best.

 

You cite only the last 365 days. Why don't you do it since the beginning of the Bush administration? The $ has lost about 20%.

 

The biggest reason the $ has gained in the past year can be directly attributed to the fact that the Europeans are having trouble ratifying the constitution and the stuff that has come up subsequently. Don't kid yourself that it's the strength of the $.

 

Again, I'm asking for cogent arguments based on well accepted economics and not supply side trickle down theory myth that's already been debunked the first time around with Reagan that Bush is trying to give us AGAIN!

 

Hugh_Hoy said:

Somebody made the comment about Clinton and his compromising of his "principals". I got a belly laugh out of that one. Clinton was probably one of the least "principaled" presidents that I can recall.

 

Morally, he was probably on the less principled side of the presidents we had. Not the least though by far!

 

But economically and environmentally he was so much more principled to Bush you can't even compare. Clinton was also a lot more principled with issues of State as well.

 

Economically: I'm with Chocolate Steve that "NO president creates a good economy". But the President does create/enhance the environment for a good Economy. Clinton did that with economic and foreign policy.

 

Bush has been the least principled by far. No balanced budget anywhere in sight. Dismantling environmental protections that allows industrial waste to go untreated giving corporate profits to a few but negatively affecting the economy as a whole via lower real estate and hgher medical costs...

 

Clinton was a lot more principled with State issues and he didn't outright lie. Bush is in a league all his own.

 

Is it principled to drag a country to war over lies?

 

The US went to war with Iraq because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The gov't has also tried to foster the understanding that the world public opinion was in favor (though with vocal dissent) of us invading Iraq.

 

Let's be clear shall we:

 

1) There is NO evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda before the war. (Sure has been though since the US invaded!)

 

2) No weapons or credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq. Nuclear weaponry? A major part of the US Gov't argument? HAH!!! Wadda myth that was!

 

3) The American people are so stupid, that over half of them believe either 1 and 2 above, or both!

 

Lying over whether one had intercourse versus lying over going to war and people dying are extremely different to me. If the former is less principled, give me less principled any day!

 

Hugh_Hoy said:

He happened to be in the White House as the economy was about to take off. Nothing he did that I can tell to start it or prolong it.

 

He was fiscally sound with the government budget whch fostered the environment for the longest economic expansion in history.

 

Can you please explain to me how the above did nothing to start/prolong the economy while Clinton was President?

 

Again, I'm asking you to please use well accepted economic theory.

 

Hugh_Hoy said:

"Over and out" on this one.

 

I hope you are talking about your arm chair remarks.

 

Now, I know many republicans who vote for Bush because it is better for them personally (though in the long term, I'd still argue it's negative unless they are in the top 1%). I can respect that.

 

Buying into the propaganda machine, whether republican or democrat, is bad in my opinion. Hugh, it sounds like you've been brainwashed!

 

<<burp>>

[Steve]

Wilson used the Lusitania sinking, which historians do concede was probably filled with weapons for England (special relationship again). It sank too quickly, which is the proof some say it had armaments aboard. It was the pretense to entering WW I.

 

FDR's lend / lease program providing weapns to England and the USSR really violated our neutrality and the only reason why Germany didn't attack was because it didn't want to drag us into....yet....but they knew eventually we'd be in it, but he just didn't want it to be before he beat either England or the USSR. Fighting in WW2 was a just cause, however, the point is FDR tried to drag us into the war despite public opinion to stay out.

 

Johnson used an alleged (no overwhelming evidence there was an attack) attack on a U.S. Military vessel in the Bay of Tonkin as a reason to expand the Vietnamese war from military advisors to ground troops.

 

Clinton said that the Balkans were in our national interest so we sent troops to the former Yugoslavia. We did it because Blair asked us to and both countries ALWAYS honor the 'special relationship' if the other wants it bad enough. The UN wouldn't go for it, so it was actually a NATO action.

 

So Bush is no different than prior presidents.

 

The internet boom fueled the economy of the '90s. Clinton couldnt' f**k it up if he tried. The amount of money the dot com boom brought in was unprecedented and unforseen. It made the national debt issue seem a secondary issue for a while. I liked him personally, felt the impeachment violated the spirit of what impeachments were meant for and it was an attempt at a de facto coup d'etat by the Republicans and some of his policies (I disagreed with others), bu tif you give Clinton credit for the '90s, give Reagan credit for the '80s.

 

They ALL lie. They're politicians for god sakes. hahaha...Some are whoppers, some are major f**k ups. Bush's seem to be a major f**k up.

 

The U.S. economy has been carrying a trade deficit for a very long time. The euro is a growing force but the EU still lags the U.S. in economic growth. Some say its the social system that is drag on its growth (debatable if its a good trade off). China is too early in its economic infancy, so the U.S. still remains the best place to put money. And the safest haven in the world for big money. I've heard the death knell about the economy for the past few decades and although there are problems (no ecoomy is immune from it), a huge debt, I don't see where any economy, of any reknowned thinks the danger is iminent and certain and will happen anytime soon. The U.S. will be replaced one day...I just don't think its tomorrow. Sometimes the sounds of the end of the U.S. economy is more wishful thinking due to ideology than sound economics. Don't get me wrong, I'm worried but not at the point of panic.

[ALHOLK]

Hi!'

 

The euro is a growing force but the EU still lags the U.S. in economic growth.

The Euro doesn't really enter in to it. The Eu is currently in a bad state and will probably remain so for a long time. The real problem is that reallity will eventually catch up with the US economy just like it did in the seventies. The same thing happened in Sweden about 15 years ago. THe main difference being that when an economy of a country with 9 million people takes a dive it is hardly noticed outside the country. When the strongest economy in the world takes a dive it will affect the rest of the world.

China is too early in its economic infancy, so the U.S. still remains the best place to put money.

I think you are underestimating China. Anywy I have just removed my pension money from US funds. However I did not place them in Chinese funds but might some day.

 

regards

 

ALHOLK