Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Down the Tubes with Dubya

musclebrains

New member
From today's NY Times:

The Reality Thing
By PAUL KRUGMAN


You can say this about the Bush administration: where others might see problems, it sees opportunities.

A slump in the economy was an opportunity to push a tax cut that provided very little stimulus in the short run, but will place huge demands on the budget in 2010. An electricity shortage in California was an opportunity to push for drilling in Alaska, which would have produced no electricity and hardly any oil until 2013 or so. An attack by lightly armed terrorist infiltrators was an opportunity to push for lots of heavy weapons and a missile defense system, just in case Al Qaeda makes a frontal assault with tank divisions or fires an ICBM next time.

President George H. W. Bush once confessed that he was somewhat lacking in the "vision thing." His son's advisers don't have that problem: they have a powerful vision for America's future. In that future, we have recently learned, the occupant of the White House will have the right to imprison indefinitely anyone he chooses, including U.S. citizens, without any judicial process or review. But they are rather less interested in the reality thing.

For the distinctive feature of all the programs the administration has pushed in response to real problems is that they do little or nothing to address those problems. Problems are there to be used to pursue the vision. And a problem that won't serve that purpose, whether it's the collapse of confidence in corporate governance or the chaos in the Middle East, is treated as an annoyance to be ignored if possible, or at best addressed with purely cosmetic measures. Clearly, George W. Bush's people believe that real-world problems will solve themselves, or at least won't make the evening news, because by pure coincidence they will be pre-empted by terror alerts.

But real problems, if not dealt with, have a way of festering. In the last few weeks, a whole series of problems seem to have come to a head. Yesterday's speech notwithstanding, Middle East policy is obviously adrift. The dollar and the stock market are plunging, threatening an already shaky economic recovery. Amtrak has been pushed to the edge of shutdown, because it couldn't get the administration's attention. And the federal government itself is about to run out of money, because House Republicans are unwilling to face reality and increase the federal debt limit. (This avoidance thing seems to be contagious.)

So now would be a good time to do what the White House always urges its critics to do — put partisanship aside. Will Mr. Bush be willing to set aside, even for a day or two, his drive to consolidate his political base, and actually do something that wasn't part of his preconceived agenda? Oh, never mind.

I think that most commentators missed the point of the story about Mr. Bush's commencement speech at Ohio State, the one his aide said drew on the thinking of Emily Dickinson, Pope John Paul II, Aristotle and Cicero, among others. Of course the aide's remarks were silly — but they gave us an indication of the level of sycophancy that Mr. Bush apparently believes to be his due. Next thing you know we'll be told that Mr. Bush is also a master calligrapher, and routinely swims across the Yangtze River. And nobody will dare laugh: just before Mr. Bush gave his actual, Aristotle-free speech, students at Ohio State were threatened with expulsion and arrest if they heckled him.

It's interesting to note that the planned Department of Homeland Security, while of dubious effectiveness in its announced purpose, will be protected against future Colleen Rowleys: the new department will be exempted from both whistle-blower protection and the Freedom of Information Act.

But back to the festering problems: on the economic side, this is starting to look like the most dangerous patch for the nation and the world since the summer of 1998. Back then, luckily, our economic policy was run by smart people who were prepared to learn from their mistakes. Can you say the same about this administration?

As I've noted before, the Bush administration has an infallibility complex: it never, ever, admits making a mistake. And that kind of arrogance tends, eventually, to bring disaster. You can read all about it in Aristotle.
 
The Bush Administration still contends that the tax cut (for the wealthiest taxpayers) has helped the economy, even while employment lines continue to grow and investors are running for the hills. Bush has two overwhelming priorities: 1) grow the size of government in terms of defense, and 2) give huge tax cuts to his wealthy cronies. Meanwhile, the elderly still don't have a prescription drug benefit, and millions of Americans remain uninsured.

Bush has a choice: give money to the wealthy and expand government OR give a prescription benefit to our nation's elderly.

Which do you think he'll choose? I'm betting he'll choose money over our health, he always has.
 
dubya.jpg
 
smallmovesal said:
this is why i was afraid when he was elected.

i think most of the rest of the world agrees.

Bush is a joke in much of Europe. According to the TIMES, before Bush went on a trip to Europe months ago, he turned to his advisers and said...."Tell me about Europe." LOL. The leader of the free world needs to be TOLD about Europe.

Bush lacks the understanding of complex policy to be President of the United States, but anyone can be President when you have the United States Supreme Court on your side.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget Kyoto, the World Court, the ban on landmines, The Clean Air Act, withdrawing funding of overseas American clinics if they counsel abortion. Don't forget the absurdly inflated claim about Padilla's "dirty bomb" (not a single shred of evidence except some boastful talk), coming just as the FBI's incompetency was being exposed. Meanwhile Ashcroft attempts to impose his personal values on the states.

All that and a collapsing economy too.

I think America has amnesia.
 
The Dems love you guys....even the Canadian liberals. Go take some Economics classes and then you might have a clue. Tax cuts definately helped the economy....but the problem with the budget is that Democrats love to spend other people's money.

The NY Times is filled with Left Wing Propoganda.

Try to read between the lines.
 
strong island said:
The Dems love you guys....even the Canadian liberals. Go take some Economics classes and then you might have a clue. Tax cuts definately helped the economy....but the problem with the budget is that Democrats love to spend other people's money.

The NY Times is filled with Left Wing Propoganda.

Try to read between the lines.

M'kay. What's the evidence that the tax cuts have helped the economy? Is it that Bush's adminstration has had to require an increase in the federal debt ceiling?
 
strong island said:
The Dems love you guys....even the Canadian liberals. Go take some Economics classes and then you might have a clue. Tax cuts definately helped the economy....but the problem with the budget is that Democrats love to spend other people's money.

The NY Times is filled with Left Wing Propoganda.

Try to read between the lines.

Sure, folks, try to read between the lines. Remember, the era of Reagan and trickle-down-economics? Really worked, didn't it?
 
Prometheus said:
well, at least that article was balanced and unbiased - nothing worse than a newspaper that pushes an agenda...

Facts are facts. You're obviously having a difficult time disputing them.
 
I myself am extremely disappointed that RyanH was the 2nd person to respond to this Post and not the first...

Apparently he's slipping in his old age.

Good article MB and as a R that voted for GW, I agree with a FEW of the issues raised especially environmental ones.

Some of the other issues he appears to have failed on are mostly Damned if you Do, Damned if you Don't IMO...
 
RyanH said:


Sure, folks, try to read between the lines. Remember, the era of Reagan and trickle-down-economics? Really worked, didn't it?

Wow you are nieve...Open up and say ahhhh. Cause McCauliff and the other Dems are scooping up piles of sheet and you are asking for seconds.

Examples: Clinton was responsible for the biggest bull market in history and Bush is responsible for the current recession.

Or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Or that Hillary is a natural at commodities trading.

Or there was no quid pro quo for giving Mark Rich a pardon

Or ...well fuck it the lists goes on and on and on and you love the taste.

Get a clue.
 
beastboy said:
Is a recession a sign of a bad president....?

Not necessarily. In this case, the response is inadequate.

Maybe the Repups, embarassed to increase the debt ceiling, will shut down the gubmint the way Newt did. That certainly helped them a lot.
 
strong island said:
Wow some of you guys are really stupid (no offense).

If you don't know shit about economics then please don't make a fool of yourself and discuss something you can't comprehend.

I am more than willing to hear your explanation of how Reagonomics worked.
 
musclebrains said:


Oh yeah. Trickle down. Enron for example.

lol. exactly. And, where are the notes from Vice-President Cheney's meeting with those Enron executives? You know, Clinton wasn't able to hide behind the veil of secrecy, but President Bush feels entitled to do just that.

Senator Rodham Clinton's healthcare task force released all of its records, but Bush has refused to release his energy commission records. Moreover, Bush's complex plan to grow big government was devised in secrecy as well, without consulting with senator or house leaders.

Where's the disclosure in government that Republicans rallied for during the nineties?
 
smallmovesal said:
please edumicate us about economics

'seasy. Get into bed with a big corrupt company like Enron, cut them all kinds of breaks because they are SO good for the economy and so many little people benefit from the treacle-down. When other companies mismanage and approach bankruptcy, bail them out, even as you, wrapped in the American flag, proclaim the glories of the free-market economy. You're doing it for the little people, who need to live on treacle-down. Give tax breaks to the rich because, despite lengthening unemployment lines, the little people need the jobs the rich should be creating.
 
musclebrains said:


Not necessarily. In this case, the response is inadequate.

Maybe the Repups, embarassed to increase the debt ceiling, will shut down the gubmint the way Newt did. That certainly helped them a lot.

psst...i have a little secret that you might not know.


WE ARE AT WAR!!! You probably don't give too much thought about our men and woman over in the middle east protecting our asses. BUT they are over there and it costs BILLIONS.

Recessions are normal and healty.

But I have news for you ...we are technically not in a recession. You need two quarters of negative growth to be in a recession. Which we don't have ...but are growth is slowing but this normal.

The great economy of the 90's was spurred by the huge growth in the technology sector. It was fun while it lasted but it is over for now...but our economy is a fucking powerhouse and will ready to accelerate again within two years.
 
strong island said:


Wow you are nieve...Open up and say ahhhh. Cause McCauliff and the other Dems are scooping up piles of sheet and you are asking for seconds.

Examples: Clinton was responsible for the biggest bull market in history and Bush is responsible for the current recession.

Or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Or that Hillary is a natural at commodities trading.

Or there was no quid pro quo for giving Mark Rich a pardon

Or ...well fuck it the lists goes on and on and on and you love the taste.

Get a clue.

As always, I will present the FACTS:

41st President of the United States George Herbert Walker Bush: presided over a recession.

42nd President of the United States William Jefferson Clinton: presided over one of the most prosperous economic times in history.

43rd President of the United States George W. Bush: presided over a recession (and maybe more to come).

Thus, BUSH=recession.
 
All the shit Enron pulled occured while Clinton was in office.

President Reagan's legacy as one of the best Presidents is already taking form.

The fucking guy had courage...and Oh yeah he won the fucking cold war. Trillions was spent on defense which was the cause for the defecits....but it was necessary to put an end to the Soviet Union.
 
RyanH said:


As always, I will present the FACTS:

41st President of the United States George Herbert Walker Bush: presided over a recession.

42nd President of the United States William Jefferson Clinton: presided over one of the most prosperous economic times in history.

43rd President of the United States George W. Bush: presided over a recession (and maybe more to come).

Thus, BUSH=recession.

What did I tell you about making a fool of yourself?? Go buy an economics textbook..please.

Is this James Carville???
 
strong island said:


psst...i have a little secret that you might not know.


WE ARE AT WAR!!! You probably don't give too much thought about our men and woman over in the middle east protecting our asses. BUT they are over there and it costs BILLIONS.

Recessions are normal and healty.

But I have news for you ...we are technically not in a recession. You need two quarters of negative growth to be in a recession. Which we don't have ...but are growth is slowing but this normal.


Did you read the column?

A bunch of terrorists with boxcutters hijacked some planes and flew them into the WTC and the Pentagon. The FBI knew they were in flight schools, the White HOuse chose to ignore reports. This "WAR" you are talking about is the result in large part of our own intelligence failures. Its political function, as the columnist observes, is to inflate the defense budget -- to say nothing of the compromise of basic judicial rights.

I'll tell all my unemployed friends that their situation is normal and healthy for the rest of us.
 
RyanH said:


As always, I will present the FACTS:

41st President of the United States George Herbert Walker Bush: presided over a recession.

42nd President of the United States William Jefferson Clinton: presided over one of the most prosperous economic times in history.

43rd President of the United States George W. Bush: presided over a recession (and maybe more to come).

Thus, BUSH=recession.

The economy headed downhill during the Clinton admin.
 
strong island said:
Oh yeah he won the fucking cold war. Trillions was spent on defense which was the cause for the defecits....but it was necessary to put an end to the Soviet Union.

You can't be serious. You think the American defense expenses caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? Are you serious?
 
strong island said:
All the shit Enron pulled occured while Clinton was in office.

President Reagan's legacy as one of the best Presidents is already taking form.

The fucking guy had courage...and Oh yeah he won the fucking cold war. Trillions was spent on defense which was the cause for the defecits....but it was necessary to put an end to the Soviet Union.

So now, Enron is because of Clinton? I see that you still aren't doing your homework. Shame on you.

Clinton wasn't the one on a first name basis with Ken Lay (CEO of Enron), but Bushie was. Bushie referred to him as "kenny boy" and even enjoyed consulting with Enron on the most vital issues facing our nation---such as energy policy. Enron was called to the White House to discuss energy policy while environmental groups were completely left out of the discussion.

"Kennyboy" also turned to Paul O'Neil, Secretary of the Treasury, for help in the weeks before Enron's collapse, and was a huge contributor to the Bush campaign. While both parties did, in fact, receive contributions from Enron, Republican connections and the amount of money republican received from Enron far exceeds that of their democratic peers.
 
It scares to the level of ingorance in this country.

Bush inherited the problem cause Clinton couldn't take care of it in eight years...But he got blown by a fat bitch in the oval office..right?

USS Cole
US Embassies in Tanzania
Bombing of World Trade Center in 1993

Good one Billy Bob Clinton....
 
beastboy said:


The economy headed downhill during the Clinton admin.

Fine, the economy began to take a turn before Bush ascended to the presidency. But that's all the more reason he should not have gone through with his tax program. Perhaps we wouldn't be looking at an increase in the debt ceiling and a likely tax increase in a few years.

The issue here isn't who "caused" the current economic situation but whether reverting to Reagonomics is going to be helpful.
 
RyanH said:


So now, Enron is because of Clinton? I see that you still aren't doing your homework. Shame on you.

Clinton wasn't the one on a first name basis with Ken Lay (CEO of Enron), but Bushie was. Bushie referred to him as "kenny boy" and even enjoyed consulting with Enron on the most vital issues facing our nation---such as energy policy. Enron was called to the White House to discuss energy policy while environmental groups were completely left out of the discussion.

"Kennyboy" also turned to Paul O'Neil, Secretary of the Treasury, for help in the weeks before Enron's collapse, and was a huge contributor to the Bush campaign. While both parties did, in fact, receive contributions from Enron, Republican connections and the amount of money republican received from Enron far exceeds that of their democratic peers.

Wasn't blaming it on Clinton just letting you know that Enron did a lot of shiznit while he was in office....take that for what its worth.
 
beastboy said:


The economy headed downhill during the Clinton admin.

economists did not declare that we were in a recession until Bush was in office, and his huge tax cut had already been passed.
 
Ryan H = James Carville

Musclebrains = Paul Begalla

or you guys believe everything the Dems want you to believe...regardless this is going nowhere.
 
strong island said:
It scares to the level of ingorance in this country.

Bush inherited the problem cause Clinton couldn't take care of it in eight years...But he got blown by a fat bitch in the oval office..right?

USS Cole
US Embassies in Tanzania
Bombing of World Trade Center in 1993

Good one Billy Bob Clinton....

Why are you only mentioning President Clinton's "failures"? Wasn't the U.S. embassy in Beirut bombed in 1983, killing 17 Americans? Wasn't the 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut, under President Reagan's watch, killing 240 Americans? Remember, the 1986 Berlin disco bombing? Or what about the 1988 sabotage of Pan Am Fliight 104 (I think is the number) which killed almost 300 people?

The Reagan Administration did not respond to any of those attacks at all except for small attacks against Libya?

Under President Clinton spending on counter-terrorims more than double and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught? Can President Bush say the same thing? Hardly.

Good one Ronnie Reagan!!!
 
and there is a DIRECT coorelation between the tax cut and the budget deficiet. America was in the black until the tax cut. Bush is an ass hole.

I get soooooooo angry whern I think about the lies and manipulation he employed to get elected. And I do not mean Florida, but the lies and manipulation he told the american public.......and the fact that so many of them believed him.

America is in deep shit with this ignorant ass at the helm and the people he has around him..... Carl Rove??? for crying out loud.
 
RyanH said:


Why are you only mentioning President Clinton's "failures"? Wasn't the U.S. embassy in Beirut bombed in 1983, killing 17 Americans? Wasn't the 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut, under President Reagan's watch, killing 240 Americans? Remember, the 1986 Berlin disco bombing? Or what about the 1988 sabotage of Pan Am Fliight 104 (I think is the number) which killed almost 300 people?

The Reagan Administration did not respond to any of those attacks at all except for small attacks against Libya?

Under President Clinton spending on counter-terrorims more than double and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught? Can President Bush say the same thing? Hardly.

Good one Ronnie Reagan!!!

The bottom line is that we DEALT with Libya and Kadhafi has been in hiding being a good boy ever since.

But Bin Laden was not affected whatsoever by Clinton.
 
I really don't understand this love for Clinton..it boggles my mind. The guy will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history.
 
strong island said:


What did I tell you about making a fool of yourself?? Go buy an economics textbook..please.

Is this James Carville???

I notice that you resort continually to ad hominem attacks. How about staying with the facts? YOu've been asked several times to back up your claims but you keep ignoring the requests.
 
Hengst said:


America is in deep shit with this ignorant ass at the helm and the people he has around him..... Carl Rove??? for crying out loud.

Co-President of the United States of America, Mr. Carl Rove:

ap_rove_020118_nh.jpg
 
Hengst said:
and there is a DIRECT coorelation between the tax cut and the budget deficiet. America was in the black until the tax cut. Bush is an ass hole.

I get soooooooo angry whern I think about the lies and manipulation he employed to get elected. And I do not mean Florida, but the lies and manipulation he told the american public.......and the fact that so many of them believed him.

America is in deep shit with this ignorant ass at the helm and the people he has around him..... Carl Rove??? for crying out loud.

You are an idiot. I will not go into it because you obviously cannot comprehend...but get some help.
 
strong island said:


The bottom line is that we DEALT with Libya and Kadhafi has been in hiding being a good boy ever since.

But Bin Laden was not affected whatsoever by Clinton.

last I heard, Libya was still considered to be a haven for terrorists.
 
a large part of this "war" can be located during reagan's *brilliant* star wars era.

nothing like a country trying to annex you with your own technology.
 
seems like the liberals on this thread think that:

1. Clinton had all good intentions and is the sole one to credit for the economy during his tenure

2. Bush took office and it was his fault that the economy turned bad

3. Everything that Bush does is to cover something up or to distract from something else. Nothing he does is to actually make peace or to defeat the terrorists.

4. Everything that Clinton does is to further the good of the country and he had all pure good intentions. Just ignore all the foreign policy blunders that led to 9/11.

GUESS WHAT CHUMPS YOU ALL ARE WRONG! KEEP DREAMING! HAVE A GOOD DAY!
 
COL KURTZ said:
seems like the liberals on this thread think that:

1. Clinton had all good intentions and is the sole one to credit for the economy during his tenure

2. Bush took office and it was his fault that the economy turned bad

3. Everything that Bush does is to cover something up or to distract from something else. Nothing he does is to actually make peace or to defeat the terrorists.

4. Everything that Clinton does is to further the good of the country and he had all pure good intentions. Just ignore all the foreign policy blunders that led to 9/11.

GUESS WHAT CHUMPS YOU ALL ARE WRONG! KEEP DREAMING! HAVE A GOOD DAY!

I'm a liberal. I posted on this thread. I would love to know how you came to these conclusions, especially since I said quite clearly that I'm disinterested in origins but how the administration responds. I think you've engaged in straw-man argumentation.
 
Jeezx I am glad the right-wing fuckwits on this page are over in the US where they can't influence European social policy. We like our social democracy just fine here, thanks. (And anyone who doesn't know the difference between socialist and social democracy, I suggest studying Russian history c. 1900-1920, you should find it enlightening).

circusgirl
 
smallmovesal said:


did you not make reference to the middle east?

I am still lost..maybe I'm just distracted by your avatar...

Good read..for those that find it difficult just jump to the last paragraph.

"The Bush recovery

Registering a sizzling 5.8 percent annual growth rate during the first quarter, the U.S. economy expanded at its fastest pace since the fourth quarter of 1999, seemingly burying what would prove to be the mildest recession in postwar history. Closer inspection, however, indicates that the expansion still is not as firmly entrenched as the first quarter's growth acceleration might suggest.
Changes in inventory accumulation accounted for 3.1 percentage points, or more than half, of the quarter's 5.8 percent growth rate. That meant that final demand — the crucial aggregate economic statistic that represents gross domestic product less changes in inventories — grew by a much less robust rate of 2.6 percent. Given the impressive growth rates in productivity in recent years — a trend that continued even during the economic slowdown — final demand would probably have to grow by an annual rate greater than 3.25 percent in order for the unemployment rate to fall. Today, unemployment stands at 5.7 percent, or nearly two percentage points above the previous expansion's cyclical low of 3.9 percent.
Last week's Commerce Department report on first quarter economic activity essentially confirmed Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's analysis. In his April 17 congressional testimony, Mr. Greenspan observed, "The behavior of inventories currently is the driving force in the near-term outlook." The Fed chairman concluded: "The pickup in the growth of [economic] activity, however, will be short-lived unless sustained increases in final demand kick in before the positive effects of inventory investment dissipate."
R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters that the key to long-term economic expansion is "a sustained turnaround in business investment." Indeed, more than any postwar economic downturn, the recent recession was caused by a major and sustained reduction in business investment. During the second half of last year, such business investment had been declining by more than an 11 percent annual rate. During the first quarter of 2002, that decline decelerated to less than 6 percent; and business spending on equipment and software finally seemed to bottom out, falling by only 0.5 percent. In terms of business investment, the worst may be behind us.
Meanwhile, consumer spending, which held up quite well even during the recession, increased at an annual rate of 3.5 percent during the first quarter. Exports, which declined by an average annual rate of nearly 14 percent during the previous three quarters, increased by nearly 7 percent during the first quarter. Reflecting the nation's response to the September 11 terrorist attack, spending for national defense increased last quarter at the fastest rate since the Vietnam War.
With inflation remaining extremely subdued, the Fed, as Mr. Greenspan indicated, will be free to maintain its accommodating monetary policy in the near term. Moreover, it should now be clear to all that the president's tax cut helped to sustain consumer spending since last summer, significantly moderating the impact of the recession that began less than two months after Mr. Bush entered office. Now let us talk about the Bush recovery instead."
 
Musclebrains, you could have just as easily title this thread: "Bitter Bush-Bashers Unite!"

Bush is clearly doing a great job. His most recent foreign policy success is averting War between India and Pakistan.

http://washtimes.com/commentary/20020625-46834324.htm

But it doesn't stop there. Bush's latest proposal for Mideast peace is consistent with his style. He lays out bold policy that liberals like you guys get up in arms over, and people like RyanH say we should be embarrassed about, then he goes right into the face of criticism, takes it head on, and comes out a winner.

That's what he did during his campaign, that's what he did in Kyoto, that's what he did going abroad right after his "Axis of Evil" comments, and that's what he's doing when he goes to Canada for the G8. Watch the other members trip over themselves to get a photo op with the leader of the free world for the folks back home.

Smalls, don't be afraid, your Country will be friggin' ecstatic to have W in town for a while.


W continues to baffle liberals. He will be re-elected overwhelmingly while you scratch your heads.
 
circusgirl said:
Jeezx I am glad the right-wing fuckwits on this page are over in the US where they can't influence European social policy. We like our social democracy just fine here, thanks. (And anyone who doesn't know the difference between socialist and social democracy, I suggest studying Russian history c. 1900-1920, you should find it enlightening).

circusgirl

awww...aren't you precious. Scotland huh.
 
LOL...I believe the effect of widespread layoffs on the productivity rate has been well examined -- and ignored here. Nice try, though. Where's that from? And how in the world was the final paragraph's conclusion reached from those preceding it?
 
Musclebrains....I think you should change your name. I am sick of wasting my time with you. You can't understand how economic cycles work...so please stop posting ignorant statements.

Thank you.
 
strong island said:


I am still lost..maybe I'm just distracted by your avatar...


*sigh*

well, your war comment just reminded me that if not for selling weapons in the middle east, there would be less of a chance of the type of war the US has been seeing.



ttlpkg - this is foryou ;)
 
ttlpkg said:
But it doesn't stop there. Bush's latest proposal for Mideast peace is consistent with his style. He lays out bold policy that liberals like you guys get up in arms over, and people like RyanH say we should be embarrassed about, then he goes right into the face of criticism, takes it head on, and comes out a winner.

That's what he did during his campaign, that's what he did in Kyoto, that's what he did going abroad right after his "Axis of Evil" comments, and that's what he's doing when he goes to Canada for the G8. Watch the other members trip over themselves to get a photo op with the leader of the free world for the folks back home.

Smalls, don't be afraid, your Country will be friggin' ecstatic to have W in town for a while.


W continues to baffle liberals. He will be re-elected overwhelmingly while you scratch your heads.

LOL...Bold policy with utterly NO way of implementing it. In other words: rhetoric. We can all agree Arafat is a liability. What is Dubya's plan for convincing the Palestinians to dump him? "PUrty please, y'all, git rid of him and I promise -- and I DO keep my promises -- that you'll have an independent Palestinian state."

Dubya is a winner...with people who support him. With the world community and a growing portion of Americans, watching their economic fortunes fade as the rich get richer, he's nothing of the kind.

By the way, if you reduce efficacy to the demand for a photo op, I guess that makes Ronald McDonald great presidential material.
 
smallmovesal said:


*sigh*

well, your war comment just reminded me that if not for selling weapons in the middle east, there would be less of a chance of the type of war the US has been seeing.



ttlpkg - this is foryou ;)

I agree.
 
strong island said:
Musclebrains....I think you should change your name. I am sick of wasting my time with you. You can't understand how economic cycles work...so please stop posting ignorant statements.

Thank you.

I don't believe you've backed up a single one of your claims, strong island, nor actually responded to the content of anone's arguments, so I think you make the right decision not to waste your time on me. Much easier to call people names, anyway. Have a nice day.
 
This "Who's Who of the G8 from the Toronto Star reads like a "Tale of the Tape" from a Major Boxing Match.

These 8 countries represent the top economies in the world, and their GDP and populations are only a fraction of what W leads in the US. All of their economies would crumble if the US did not support them, and they also enjoy living under the US defense umbrella, especially countries like Canada who have no real defense budget to worry about so they can have major social programs. W will look them in the eye, tell them what he expects, and they will do their best to comply without looking like total retards to the home folks. Period.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...agepath=News/NationalReport&col=1012319928928
 
Yawn. If you're so damn smart Strong Island, let's see some of the economic theory lessons you've been threatening to mete out to musclebrains. Otherwise we might think you were just an ignorant wanker who can't be bothered to justify or explain his views other than to make ad hominem attacks...

You'd have been mincemeat at my college's debate society. Or any college's debate society for that matter. Either put up, or shut up.

circusgirl
 
ttlpkg said:
W will look them in the eye, tell them what he expects, and they will do their best to comply without looking like total retards to the home folks. Period.


yeah but will he look like a retard when he speaks in his own personal form of ebonics? and will the other leaders understand?
 
musclebrains said:

LOL...Bold policy with utterly NO way of implementing it. In other words: rhetoric. We can all agree Arafat is a liability.

Can you please name one other US President who has had the balls to say this publicly?
 
The Nature Boy said:
yeah but will he look like a retard when he speaks in his own personal form of ebonics? and will the other leaders understand?

NB, you are right. He will no doubt make a blunder of speech. But after the chuckling, you can bet those other members of the G8 will be scrambling to find out what he meant so they can get on board.
 
ttlpkg said:
This "Who's Who of the G8 from the Toronto Star reads like a "Tale of the Tape" from a Major Boxing Match.

These 8 countries represent the top economies in the world, and their GDP and populations are only a fraction of what W leads in the US. All of their economies would crumble if the US did not support them, and they also enjoy living under the US defense umbrella, especially countries like Canada who have no real defense budget to worry about so they can have major social programs. W will look them in the eye, tell them what he expects, and they will do their best to comply without looking like total retards to the home folks. Period.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...agepath=News/NationalReport&col=1012319928928

i agree to an extent that canada is sometimes like a retarded echo.... i don't claim to like it.

well, i recall that when we do differ from american interests, such as with the farm crisis in the prairies... the US will change everything to be in their favour. it's too bad if they make policies that end up not in their favour.... but to make one to tip the scale back is wrong imo. i'd rather see lives considered, not countries first. screw the policy then and come up with something mutually beneficial.
 
BTW this defense shield ttlpkg speaks of didn't do shit on sept 11th, nor will it do shit when terrorists attack again. and in afghanastan we basically used the military that bush inherited from slick willie, a rapid deployable, quick hitting military. so dubya, in his jibber jabber form of language, should thank "Clit"on.
 
circusgirl said:
Yawn. If you're so damn smart Strong Island, let's see some of the economic theory lessons you've been threatening to mete out to musclebrains. Otherwise we might think you were just an ignorant wanker who can't be bothered to justify or explain his views other than to make ad hominem attacks...

You'd have been mincemeat at my college's debate society. Or any college's debate society for that matter. Either put up, or shut up.

circusgirl

yawn....Relax William Wallace..don't get so upset. You want me to teach you Economics 101 in the next 5 minutes...Or maybe you can go back to the University of Dunkirk (real school??) and take some Economics and Finance classes. Instead of taking debate and stone throwing classes.

If you haven't realize we are all just busting each others balls and NOBODY is going to be influenced.

Dems and Republicans both spin everything...you just have to try to be as objective as possible.

Do you really believe the the US would be better if Gore was prez??
 
smallmovesal said:
well, i recall that when we do differ from american interests, such as with the farm crisis in the prairies... the US will change everything to be in their favour.

That's cuz we're nice, and besides, we like our Canadian neighbors. :)
 
strong island said:


You are an idiot. I will not go into it because you obviously cannot comprehend...but get some help.
Strong Island - this is called an ad hominem argument;
when you can't win the argument, then attack the opponent's character.
We see it often enough around here to not be swayed by it.
It hurts your reputation more than it hurts your oponent.

My views on Bush are already well known, so I won't rehash them here.
I just have one hope from the current revisit to "trickle down economics":
The last time we tried it, Regan ran up a huge deficit, which created horrible inflation, but also inflated the value of all real estate, and made homeowners very valuable on paper.
I missed out on that round of wealth creation.
This time around I stand to ride the wave to wealth thru inflated housing prices.
If only I still have a job to make the mortgage.
If any of you are both Bush supporters and a renter, get ready to be shafted by the round of inflation that surely follows deficit spending.
 
The Nature Boy said:
BTW this defense shield ttlpkg speaks of didn't do shit on sept 11th, nor will it do shit when terrorists attack again. and in afghanastan we basically used the military that bush inherited from slick willie, a rapid deployable, quick hitting military. so dubya, in his jibber jabber form of language, should thank "Clit"on.

Oh, you mean we didn't have Green Berets and AC-130 Gunships before Bill Clinton?
 
john937 said:

Strong Island - this is called an ad hominem argument;
when you can't win the argument, then attack the opponent's character.
We see it often enough around here to not be swayed by it.
It hurts your reputation more than it hurts your oponent.

My views on Bush are already well known, so I won't rehash them here.
I just have one hope from the current revisit to "trickle down economics":
The last time we tried it, Regan ran up a huge deficit, which created horrible inflation, but also inflated the value of all real estate, and made homeowners very valuable on paper.
I missed out on that round of wealth creation.
This time around I stand to ride the wave to wealth thru inflated housing prices.
If only I still have a job to make the mortgage.
If any of you are both Bush supporters and a renter, get ready to be shafted by the round of inflation that surely follows deficit spending.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings I was just kidding. Sorry mang. Good luck finding a job.
 
no not at all, but clinton got blamed for downsizing did he not? and the downsized military that was used in afghanastan is what clinton handed down to dubya. if you dispute this then I have to question whether you are a sentient being or not.
 
Ladies and Gentlemen---

Ttlpkg is absolutely right. Bush has proposed bold policy, but it's bold INCONSISTENT policy that he's proposed:

Bush claims he is a free trader.
**flip flop**
Tariffs on steel imposed.

Bush says Arafat should stay.
**flip flop**
Arafat should go.

A new government agency is not needed.
**flip flop**
A new government agency is needed, afterall.

Bush contends that he will never allow stem cell research.
**flip flop""
Bush allows stem cell research.

Bush is only REACTING to situations in hopes of being re-elected. It's no secret that West Virginia is vital to Bushie's re-election and so Bushie contradicts his free trade position with tariffs.

I thought that the Bushies were above Clintonesque campaigning to get re-elected. Guess not, eh? :confused:
 
The Nature Boy said:
no not at all, but clinton got blamed for downsizing did he not? and the downsized military that was used in afghanastan is what clinton handed down to dubya. if you dispute this then I have to question whether you are a sentient being or not.

No dispute with that, but that is no reason to thank Bill, rather praise W for clever utilization of the military, or rather, appointing strong leaders like Rumsfeld and allowing the Generals to do their jobs without interference.

You guys are going to get sick of me today, I am on leave this week and have nothing but time.:fro:
 
well I honestly don't think W cleverly utilized the military. He probably woke up from his afternoon nap and had some fruit punch and said "blow em up" and the generals ran with it.
 
dunno how to quote here but -

Naw, I can't make cookies, my cooking tastes like shit. My husband does all the cooking in my house, I clean up and do the washing up.

Anyway I'm too busy practicing my axe kick for my upcoming tkd class - RRRRAAAAARRRRR!!!!!! *crash* *bang* *wallop* and other old batman series sounds.

Economics 101 -
Seeing as Strong Island doesn't want to enlighten us, I thought I might.

Capitalism - in its modern form originally outlined by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Bsed on the principles of supply and demand setting prices, wages etc. Incidentally, Smith imagined society as a network of independent contractors, not a society of wage-slaves. he imagined EVERYONE would be self-employed. Scott Adams actually talks about this quite a lot in some of his books, although he's not exactly a prominent economic theorist.

Socialism - concentrates on the added value that results from labour, and points out that a few individuals amass the profit from other's labour. theory is that ALL added value comes from labour, hence labour is the only important commodity. The theory of socialism doesn't include JUST political socialism, it's also relevant in terms of how we percieve economic theory. Marx may not have known shit about politics and human nature, nevertheless, his ideas are interesting from an anlytical point of view, also his view on conducting historical research, and on linguistics, particularly sociolinguistics...

Social Democracy - realises that unbridled capitalism is ok if everyone starts from a level playing field. However, one generation on, this isn't so, and so the dynamics of the cream rising to the top put forward by Smith don't apply any more, and you get a dissatisfied underclass. Hence it being in everyone's interest to allow equality of opportunity.

The Economist some time ago had an interesting article on the subject of economic politics that said that socialism missed the main point - that inequality was not the problem, but people living in poverty was. Make sure no-one is living in abject poverty they have no way out of and many social problems will disappear. If you exclude people from social participation or refuse to give them the chance to better their situation you create an underclass with nothing to lose -> crime, violence, anti-social stone-age tribal behaviour.... I can't remember which issue, it would have been about 6 months ago. Give them something useful and beneficial to do and it keeps people occupied and in society.

There you have in, economics 101....
 
Bush claims he is a free trader.
**flip flop**
Tariffs on steel imposed.

>>>>>Bush it taking care of American industry...thats his job.

Bush says Arafat should stay.
**flip flop**
Arafat should go.

>>>>He never said he should stay permanantly...he tried to give him a shot. Clinton kissed Arafat's ass and Arafat took advantage.

A new government agency is not needed.
**flip flop**
A new government agency is needed, afterall.

>>>>Agency is needed or atleast reorganization. Again Bush trying to protect Americans.

Bush contends that he will never allow stem cell research.
**flip flop""
Bush allows stem cell research.

>>>>Bush is allowing research on EXISTING stem cells. This will help us understand this new technology.
 
RyanH said:
Ttlpkg is absolutely right.

(I just quoted the part I like)

I would not characterize W's policy as inconsisitent. (surprise). There are clearly "by exception" cases. He never said a new govt agency was not needed, but that the govt was too big. Standing up Home Defense will consolidate reduntant functions in our existing govt and make them more effective and accountable. That is makes sense and is consistent with a desire for smaller, more efficient govt.

In the case of Arafat, he was given an opportunity, and he failed. Now Bush is the only American President to say, after giving him every chance, that Arafat must go for there to be peace in the Middle East.
 
kingjohn said:


thats pretty weak ryan. I guess Clinton never needed an update on any geopolitical topics from his advisers.

what's weak about it? President Clinton is well-known, even by his enemies, to have a broad understanding of complicated policy matters, whereas Bushie had a difficult time during the campaign of even recalling the names of foreign leaders.

And once Bush took office, he sits down with his advisers and asks them to "tell me about Europe." One would think that the President would already at least have a working knowledge of an important CONTINENT such as Europe. But, Bushie didn't. Sad.
 
RyanH said:


Bush is only REACTING to situations in hopes of being re-elected. It's no secret that West Virginia is vital to Bushie's re-election and so Bushie contradicts his free trade position with tariffs.

I thought that the Bushies were above Clintonesque campaigning to get re-elected. Guess not, eh? :confused:

Which is exactly Krugman's point. Dubya's flipflopping in the naked interest of politics is excused by his supporters (as "flexibility," etc.). Meanwhile, they continue to demonize Clinton for having the courage to take very unpopular positions. In Dubya's case, we're supposed to chuckle at his incoherence and then climb on board -- as if what we are climbing on board won't tranform itself over night. In Clinton's case, we're supposed to revile his memory for his mainly consistent political positions because he lied about a blow job.
 
The Nature Boy said:
He probably woke up from his afternoon nap and had some fruit punch and said "blow em up" and the generals ran with it.

You're right, that wouldn't be clever, that would be an act of pure genius!
 
circusgirl said:
dunno how to quote here but -

Naw, I can't make cookies, my cooking tastes like shit. My husband does all the cooking in my house, I clean up and do the washing up.

Anyway I'm too busy practicing my axe kick for my upcoming tkd class - RRRRAAAAARRRRR!!!!!! *crash* *bang* *wallop* and other old batman series sounds.

Economics 101 -
Seeing as Strong Island doesn't want to enlighten us, I thought I might.

Capitalism - in its modern form originally outlined by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Bsed on the principles of supply and demand setting prices, wages etc. Incidentally, Smith imagined society as a network of independent contractors, not a society of wage-slaves. he imagined EVERYONE would be self-employed. Scott Adams actually talks about this quite a lot in some of his books, although he's not exactly a prominent economic theorist.

Socialism - concentrates on the added value that results from labour, and points out that a few individuals amass the profit from other's labour. theory is that ALL added value comes from labour, hence labour is the only important commodity. The theory of socialism doesn't include JUST political socialism, it's also relevant in terms of how we percieve economic theory. Marx may not have known shit about politics and human nature, nevertheless, his ideas are interesting from an anlytical point of view, also his view on conducting historical research, and on linguistics, particularly sociolinguistics...

Social Democracy - realises that unbridled capitalism is ok if everyone starts from a level playing field. However, one generation on, this isn't so, and so the dynamics of the cream rising to the top put forward by Smith don't apply any more, and you get a dissatisfied underclass. Hence it being in everyone's interest to allow equality of opportunity.

The Economist some time ago had an interesting article on the subject of economic politics that said that socialism missed the main point - that inequality was not the problem, but people living in poverty was. Make sure no-one is living in abject poverty they have no way out of and many social problems will disappear. If you exclude people from social participation or refuse to give them the chance to better their situation you create an underclass with nothing to lose -> crime, violence, anti-social stone-age tribal behaviour.... I can't remember which issue, it would have been about 6 months ago. Give them something useful and beneficial to do and it keeps people occupied and in society.

There you have in, economics 101....

Good job...you covered page 1 of Chapter 1...You get a star next to your name.

Little tip...buy some Entenmann's Milk Chocolate Cookies and put them in the microwave for 40 seconds...then tell your hubbie you made them. He'll love em.
 
strong island said:
Bush claims he is a free trader.
**flip flop**
Tariffs on steel imposed.

>>>>>Bush it taking care of American industry...thats his job.

A new government agency is not needed.
**flip flop**
A new government agency is needed, afterall.

>>>>Agency is needed or atleast reorganization. Again Bush trying to protect Americans.

wrong on point one, he saved about 3000 jobs in the steel states because they are also "swing states". it was a total political ploy, and will cost many more jobs in the long run because steel prices will go up. Companies that buy steel have to pay more, which equals layoffs in the long term.

and in terms of added government creation, he supposed to be making government smaller. but as you say it's for the protection of americans. However the legislation passed that infringes on our rights, if not unchecked, will lead us towards a totalitarian state.
 
musclebrains said:
In Dubya's case, we're supposed to chuckle at his incoherence and then climb on board -- as if what we are climbing on board won't tranform itself over night.

An occasional blunder doesn't make him incoherent, it makes him human. In fact his policy is crystal clear, and yes, watch open-mouthed as the G8 climb on board.
 
strong island said:
Bush claims he is a free trader.
**flip flop**
Tariffs on steel imposed.

>>>>>Bush it taking care of American industry...thats his job.

Bush says Arafat should stay.
**flip flop**
Arafat should go.

>>>>He never said he should stay permanantly...he tried to give him a shot. Clinton kissed Arafat's ass and Arafat took advantage.

A new government agency is not needed.
**flip flop**
A new government agency is needed, afterall.

>>>>Agency is needed or atleast reorganization. Again Bush trying to protect Americans.

Bush contends that he will never allow stem cell research.
**flip flop""
Bush allows stem cell research.

>>>>Bush is allowing research on EXISTING stem cells. This will help us understand this new technology.

Well thanks for documenting Ryan's claim. What you're missing is that most of these would entail a complete philosophical shift.
 
ttlpkg said:


An occasional blunder doesn't make him incoherent, it makes him human. In fact his policy is crystal clear, and yes, watch open-mouthed as the G8 climb on board.

Occasional. So occasional entire websites are devoted to documenting them.
 
RyanH said:
And once Bush took office, he sits down with his advisers and asks them to "tell me about Europe

Any smart executive surrounds himself with talent. I wasn't there, and neither were you, but I'm sure Bush received and continues to receive briefings from subject matter experts like Condolezza Rich and Paul Wolfowitz rather than rely soley on what he already knew.

Wouldn't you?
 
I could post my high school economics textbook ref here, but I doubt Amazon carry irish school textbooks..... Anyway, even if you never did economics in high school, I would suggest you all go read one of these, they are pretty good at explaining things nice and clearly for the non-accountant. (Actually, I studied accounting for 5 years as well, but that's a different story). I do know as much about economics as you strong island, I just disagree with you on what's good for society.

Re cookies - hmmm we don't have a microwave.

We moved into our first appartment that we own recently, and hubbie pointed out we didn't need to spend 50 pounds (80 dollars) on a microwave so I could reheat my coffee, and anyway we didn't have room. I said, but pleeeeze we NEVER remember to take the meat outta the freezer on time.... Anyway, he is off to the US for 2 months soon (work is sending him) so when he comes back I will have put up some more shelves in the kitchen and there will be room for a microwave. We live right next to a DIY superstore, which makes me one VERY happy circusgirl.

However, ready-made cookie dough sounds niiiiiiiice, now, I wonder how I can justify these as a BB food....

circusgirl
 
Top Bottom