Bush Disarms, Unilaterally (1 Viewer)

[26 X World Champs]

As the Stock Markets continued their steep decline today, with the NYSE losing more in one day than anytime since May 2003, and closing at a 5 month low, Tom Friedman published a timely OP-ED piece in today's NY Times.

To all my Republican comrades, how are you going to blame this very negative downturn in our economy on Clinton and the Democrats? Every single economic policy in effect today is the brainchild of Bush and his economic geniuses.

Bush's plans are failing, we're spinning into a negative spiral. We've fallen way behind in technology, which is a real sin (unlike gay marriage).

Someone, please explain to us why the economy sucks so much?

Price of oil? Whose fault is that? Interest rates rising because the dollar is so weak that the only way to prop it up is to raise interest rates so foreign investors buy dollars.

What's the Republican euphemism for RECESSION? I'm sure the spinners will let us know.

Bush Disarms, Unilaterally
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: April 15, 2005 - New York Times

One of the things that I can't figure out about the Bush team is why an administration that is so focused on projecting U.S. military strength abroad has taken such little interest in America's economic competitiveness at home - the underlying engine of our strength. At a time when the global economic playing field is being flattened - enabling young Indians and Chinese to collaborate and compete with Americans more than ever before - this administration is off on an ideological jag. It is trying to take apart the New Deal by privatizing Social Security, when what we really need most today is a New New Deal to make more Americans employable in 21st-century jobs.

We have a Treasury secretary from the railroad industry. We have an administration that won't lift a finger to prevent the expensing of stock options, which is going to inhibit the ability of U.S. high-tech firms to attract talent - at a time when China encourages its start-ups to grant stock options to young innovators. And we have movie theaters in certain U.S. towns afraid to show science films because they are based on evolution and not creationism.

The Bush team is proposing cutting the Pentagon's budget for basic science and technology research by 20 percent next year - after President Bush and the Republican Congress already slashed the 2005 budget of the National Science Foundation by $100 million.

When the National Innovation Initiative, a bipartisan study by the country's leading technologists and industrialists about how to re-energize U.S. competitiveness, was unveiled last December, it was virtually ignored by the White House. Did you hear about it? Probably not, because the president preferred to focus all attention on privatizing Social Security.

The piece continues here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/opinion/15friedman.html?hp

It sure seems to me like those tax cuts that Bush gave to his sponsors aren't doing what he promised, are they? Kind of reminds me of Reagan's Trickle Down Economics, remember? That was a giant disaster too, and like Bush's moronic tax cuts, created an out of control deficit that really hurt....What did my pal Yogi say? "Deja Vu all over again."

:2mad:

 

[Squawker]

**yawn** You know what the old saying is? Sh*t in one hand; wish in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Is this a republican destroying the leader of his party?

I totally agree with you plus I loved that article.

Bush isn't the whiz people say he is,(when I say "he" I mean him and his administration) he's terrible at economics, terrible at foreign relations, terrible at the English language.

Cutting the Pentagon's Science is a stupid idea... we need science to invent new items which can do things that we've only dreamed off like a non-gas powered car. I'm awaiting to see some Republicans out-looks on this matter I want to hear both sides of the lines.

 

[26 X World Champs]

**yawn** You know what the old saying is? Sh*t in one hand; wish in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster.

Typical, can't dispute the truth, so instead attack the messenger. That's a stance that is as weak as Bush's economic policies....

 

[Arch Enemy]

I think this is an important topic.. so keep this alive.. you Republicans CANNOT hide.

 

[Schweddy]

It sure seems to me like those tax cuts that Bush gave to his sponsors aren't doing what he promised, are they? Kind of reminds me of Reagan's Trickle Down Economics, remember? That was a giant disaster too, and like Bush's moronic tax cuts, created an out of control deficit that really hurt....What did my pal Yogi say? "Deja Vu all over again."

Running uphill is always slower than jumping off the moutain.

It is impossible to 'fix' everything overnight.
Hold your shorts, "help is on the way". You just gotta have a little patience.

Besides, the New York Times is anything but unbiased. This is an opinion piece and you are calling it fact.

 

[Squawker]

Bush bashing is a lot more fun for the lefties than the truth, but what ta heck. Let's give it a go anyway. (Feb. 2004 CBO Report)

The 1981-2004 sample period is not typical of the post-World War II period as a whole. It contains only three recessions (those of 1981 and 1982, 1990 and 1991, and 2001)--compared with seven in the earlier post-World War II years--and the two most recent recessions were milder than average. Moreover, the 1981-1982 recession is not well represented in the sample because only one of the baseline projections preceded it. If CBO had been confronted over the past two decades with a less stable economy--one more representative of the cyclical experience of the whole post-World War II period--the cyclical component would have been roughly one-third larger than the noncyclical component, on average. However, even if CBO takes into account the greater volatility of output in that entire post-World War II period, the width of the fan chart increases by about 10 percent through the second year of the projection and by one-fourth in the third through fifth years of the projection.
Whether the next decade will more closely resemble the past two decades or the entire postwar period cannot be determined in advance. However, recent research suggests that fundamental changes in the economy that occurred in the early 1980s may have resulted in fewer and milder cyclical movements in the past two decades and may presage a relatively stable economy in the future. Analysts differ on the nature of those changes but generally do not expect a return to higher volatility in the next five years--but, rather, volatility that may be lower than it has been in the past two decades.(4)

Source

 

[26 X World Champs]

Running uphill is always slower than jumping off the moutain.

It is impossible to 'fix' everything overnight.
Hold your shorts, "help is on the way". You just gotta have a little patience.

Besides, the New York Times is anything but unbiased. This is an opinion piece and you are calling it fact.

No, that is an untruth. In the very first paragraph, introducing the piece I wrote:

Tom Friedman published a timely OP-ED piece in today's NY Times.

I call that full disclosure. I then expressed my opinion. Tell me, what in that piece is not factual? Please be specific?

As far as your "help is on the way" stuff, it's been 4+ years, when exactly is the help arriving? I also seem to recall lots and lots of gloating by Bushies about how great the economy is, remember, during the election campaign?

Question? It we actually slip into a recession, whose fault will that be? Will Bush find a way to blame Clinton again, or Democrats in general? Any thoughts?

 

[Contrarian]

Bush bashing is a lot more fun for the lefties than the truth, but what ta heck.

It just so happens that Bush is in office, so bashing the president is as American as apple pie... did you not bash Clinton when he was in office? Remember him, the guy who was in office during the greatest economic growth in American history? Remember the guy who eliminated the deficit? Does that mean Clinton wasn't inept at handling the brewing terrorist problem or over seeing other debacles? No... he was a hump head in many ways and as President he was fair game of any citizen who disagreed.

Actually Bush makes himself an easy target... did you see the economic reports yesterday?.. the stock market hit it's lowest point in 10 years... the economy in general is slowing down as evidenced by decreases in purchases of durable goods... the real estate market has begin it's back slide in major markets... the mortgage interest that backs this declining real estate value is increasing (could be catastrophic)... The trade deficit is blowing up faster than the big bang theory....the working class lost factory jobs to China and was told to retrain for non-manufaturing jobs only to find that the service sectors are being outsourced to India... he pushed through legislation that supported the credit card industy and their loan shark interest rates in preventing citizens with catastrophic bankruptcy (illness, job loss etc) from seeking the same protection that is afforded to big corporations. He is either incompetent or evil and since his a God fearing Texan I would have to go with the former.

I'm not bashing Bush because he is Republican, just like I wasn't bashing Clinton when he deserved it. Bush spends money like a drunken Democrat (no Teddy Kennedy jokes here guys!). He is incompetent in running business enterprises as judged by his stellar record in private industry. This guy is lost in space and when he has retired on his pension with life long free health care, book deals, speaking engagements and kick backs from his corporate sponsors, and the rest of us have to pay the tab... I would hope you'd feel differently.

 

[Fantasea]

Somebody help me. The complaining about the cuts which reduced the bill for everyone who pays income taxes aside, I'm trying to recall the last constructive idea put forth by a Democrat that would have a positive effect on the economy, but I can't.

 

[anomaly]

In response to the original thead, I'd simply like to point out that lowering taxes while increasing spending never goes over too well. Also, I don't remember a time in history where economic polarization has worked out for the better. It seems to me that the terrible economic practices of Reagan and Clinton have only gotten worse with Bush Jr. Oh, but I forgot, a rising nat'l debt is good for the economy. Right.

 

[26 X World Champs]

In response to the original thead, I'd simply like to point out that lowering taxes while increasing spending never goes over too well. Also, I don't remember a time in history where economic polarization has worked out for the better. It seems to me that the terrible economic practices of Reagan and Clinton have only gotten worse with Bush Jr. Oh, but I forgot, a rising nat'l debt is good for the economy. Right.

I believe this thread is about the 360 degree failure of the Bush Administration in identifying and enacting appropriate measures to keep the US competitive in the world market. Tom Friedman's OP-ED piece points out how far behind we've fallen in key categories, i.e. Broadband, because Bush and his appointees have diverted their and our attention to insignificant issues such as Social Security.

For some reason I get the feeling that Republicans do not want to play with the rest of the world economically, which, again, is a vital point of Friedman's story. The key point Friedman makes (IMHO) is that in economics it can be WIN-WIN, but Bush's policies ignore the world community and the result is a faltering economy in the short term, and real economic and technologic disaster in the long term.

This thread is NOT about tax cuts. It is, IMHO, about US world economic policy and how fuc*ed up we, the USA are in our approach.

Can anyone tell me that it's OK that we've dropped to 13th most advanced in Broadband, that many other countries not only have more homes wired, but that it's a much faster network and less expensive for the consumer? That's OK? When's the FIRST time you heard Bush or his mouthpieces even discuss the subject on any national stage?

The long term effect of Bush on this country's world economic policy is the subject, and the debate, IMHO, is about what we all think of Bush's specific policies and agendas. :hm

 

[Fantasea]

As the Stock Markets continued their steep decline today, with the NYSE losing more in one day than anytime since May 2003, and closing at a 5 month low, Tom Friedman published a timely OP-ED piece in today's NY Times.

To all my Republican comrades, how are you going to blame this very negative downturn in our economy on Clinton and the Democrats? Every single economic policy in effect today is the brainchild of Bush and his economic geniuses.

Bush's plans are failing, we're spinning into a negative spiral. We've fallen way behind in technology, which is a real sin (unlike gay marriage).

Someone, please explain to us why the economy sucks so much?

Price of oil? Whose fault is that? Interest rates rising because the dollar is so weak that the only way to prop it up is to raise interest rates so foreign investors buy dollars.

What's the Republican euphemism for RECESSION? I'm sure the spinners will let us know.


The piece continues here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/opinion/15friedman.html?hp

It sure seems to me like those tax cuts that Bush gave to his sponsors aren't doing what he promised, are they? Kind of reminds me of Reagan's Trickle Down Economics, remember? That was a giant disaster too, and like Bush's moronic tax cuts, created an out of control deficit that really hurt....What did my pal Yogi say? "Deja Vu all over again."

:2mad:

While Mr. Friedman's comments may be taken at face value, several things come to mind.

The countries referred to had limited infrastructure in these areas and, of course, employed 'state of the art' technology when they decided to advance into the Third Millennium. To do otherwise would have been foolish. The US, on the other hand, was strung with millions(?) of miles of telephone wires when Al Gore invented the internet. At the time, the telephone wires were 'state of the art'. Broadband didn't exist as we know it today.

While companies and their subscribers are slow to let go of the old ways when the cost of scrapping and replacing the old stuff is considered, the US is getting there, albeit not so fast as Mr. Friedman would like.

Emerging countries are not stringing a single mile of wire. They go directly to wireless everything because, today, that's the only sensible way for them to go.

The same thing happened when WWII ended. The production of the US 1920s industrial complex bombed all of the industry in Germany and Japan into dust. There was nothing left upon which to re-build. They started from scratch and, of course, utilized every state of the Art development of the 50s and 60s to immediately surpass US industry which was still operating ancient plants under ancient work rules. Eventually, the US caught up.

Considering that every single advance of merit has come as a result of private efforts and the that government bureaucracy has a reputation for stifling any innovations it sticks its hands into, why should there be any government involvement in technological development at all?

Encourage the entrepreneurs who are propelled by the profit motive to spend their own capital on the R&D that leads to new products and inventions, let them make money on the fruits of their efforts, and let them pay taxes on the profits. That's the win-win.

Competition has, and always will, keep prices in line. If a US idea can be executed elsewhere so as to provide the product to a US consumer at the best price, then two things happen. The economy of the producing country improves and the US consumer gets the goods at a lower cost. This is a double benefit for the US.

The goal of the socialist-lib-dems is to hobble US industrial and commercial capabilities so that they can complain that the capitalist-conservative-repub Administration is doing a lousy job.

Their sole desire is to regain some of the power they frittered away with policies and programs which did not resonate with their base. They believe that the more they can make the electorate suffer, economically, the sooner the electorate will become sore at the Administration and vote the Dems back into power. They are just too arrogant to accept the idea that folks are smarter than they used to be and aren't as easily manipulated as they used to be.

If this is not so, then someone kindly provide a list of things the Democrats have done, NOT SAID, but have done, to help improve the economy they complain about. (Moaning about the cuts which have reduced the bill for every income tax payer doesn't count.)

 

[26 X World Champs]

The goal of the socialist-lib-dems is to hobble US industrial and commercial capabilities so that they can complain that the capitalist-conservative-repub Administration is doing a lousy job.

What a bunch of BS! You're saying that Liberals are TRAITORS who want the country to fail. You are truly deranged. You need to stop drinking the kool-aid, you're totally whacked!

Their sole desire is to regain some of the power they frittered away with policies and programs which did not resonate with their base. They believe that the more they can make the electorate suffer, economically, the sooner the electorate will become sore at the Administration and vote the Dems back into power. They are just too arrogant to accept the idea that folks are smarter than they used to be and aren't as easily manipulated as they used to be.

Anyone who truly believes what you wrote is certifiably insane. "Make the electorate suffer!" You've gone completely off the deep end. This is even stupider than the usual generalizations that you contribute here. You've outdone yourself this time. What's next on your hit parade? What other evilness do you want to attribute to Liberals?

If this is not so, then someone kindly provide a list of things the Democrats have done, NOT SAID, but have done, to help improve the economy they complain about. (Moaning about the cuts which have reduced the bill for every income tax payer doesn't count.)

Why don't you ask the Congress or the President? Republicans have the majority right now, so obviously Democrats are not in a position to "help improve the economy."

Your logic is so flawed I don't know if using the word logic is accurate. You're so far off the reality path that no matter what anyone writes here that you disagree with you'll come up with some crazy retort that only you can defend. Yikes!

Tell you what, when Clinton was President the economy was great. Now that Bush is President the economy sucks.

Your logic about other countries infrastructure is, surprise, wrong! Japan and South Korea are not developing nations! You called them EMERGING COUNTRIES! :rofl They are 1st world countries that devoted their resources to future technology because they're visionary. Bush, on the other hand isn't even capable of programming his iPod!

Remember Bush's techno-intelligent comment during the debate about the "INTERNETS"?

While companies and their subscribers are slow to let go of the old ways when the cost of scrapping and replacing the old stuff is considered, the US is getting there, albeit not so fast as Mr. Friedman would like.

You think that dropping from 4th in the world to 13th during Bush's term is "getting there"? If nothing else Fantasea, you're very consistent, consistently misinformed...

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
The goal of the socialist-lib-dems is to hobble US industrial and commercial capabilities so that they can complain that the capitalist-conservative-repub Administration is doing a lousy job.

What a bunch of BS! You're saying that Liberals are TRAITORS who want the country to fail. You are truly deranged. You need to stop drinking the kool-aid, you're totally whacked!

I never called them traitors. However, since you have chosen to use that descriptor, who am I to argue the point? I concede that you must know them far better than I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Their sole desire is to regain some of the power they frittered away with policies and programs which did not resonate with their base. They believe that the more they can make the electorate suffer, economically, the sooner the electorate will become sore at the Administration and vote the Dems back into power. They are just too arrogant to accept the idea that folks are smarter than they used to be and aren't as easily manipulated as they used to be.

Anyone who truly believes what you wrote is certifiably insane. "Make the electorate suffer!" You've gone completely off the deep end. This is even stupider than the usual generalizations that you contribute here. You've outdone yourself this time.

Is there some significance to the fact that you have not come to the defense of the socialist-lib-dems? You merely expressed a rather weak denial of my comment.

What's next on your hit parade? What other evilness do you want to attribute to Liberals?

You want more? Haven't you had enough?

OK. How about this. Today, on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked his guest, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D) MD (that's Maryland, not Doctor), this question. "Has Tom Delay (R) TX broken any laws or committed any ethics violations?" Hoyer lalunched into a typical Democratic dance around the question. Wallace called Hoyer on his failure to furnish an answer and repeated the question. Hoyer replied meekly, "No, but he's getting close to the line." So why is all the Democratic fire and brimstone being thrown on Delay?

I'll give you a pass on this one. Since the whole world knows the answer, you needn't embarrass yourself with an attempt at a response.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
If this is not so, then someone kindly provide a list of things the Democrats have done, NOT SAID, but have done, to help improve the economy they complain about. (Moaning about the cuts which have reduced the bill for every income tax payer doesn't count.)

Why don't you ask the Congress or the President? Republicans have the majority right now, so obviously Democrats are not in a position to "help improve the economy."

OK. Now that you have acknowledged that, other than moan about the cuts which have reduced the bill for every income tax payer, what realistic suggestions have they offered to improve the economy which have been ignored by the Administration?

Your logic is so flawed I don't know if using the word logic is accurate. You're so far off the reality path that no matter what anyone writes here that you disagree with you'll come up with some crazy retort that only you can defend. Yikes!

How crazy can it be if it can be defended?

Tell you what, when Clinton was President the economy was great. Now that Bush is President the economy sucks.

You do recall, I'm sure that the Clinton burst bubble recession was well under way on the day of GWB's first inauguration.

Your logic about other countries infrastructure is, surprise, wrong! Japan and South Korea are not developing nations! You called them EMERGING COUNTRIES!

That's exactly what they were in the 50s 60s and early 70s when they were climbing out of their WWII hole.

They are 1st world countries that devoted their resources to future technology because they're visionary.

Yes, today they are, aren't they.

Bush, on the other hand isn't even capable of programming his iPod!

It must be hereditary. During his own campaign, at a stop in a supermarket, his father was amazed out of his socks when he saw a drop-out grocery clerk scanning the bar codes at the check-out counter, getting the correct total, and making the correct change for a customer.

See that? With enough automated electronic assistance, these numb skull drop-outs are employable. (My comment, not that of the President's father)

Remember Bush's techno-intelligent comment during the debate about the "INTERNETS"?

No. But I'm sure you're itching to tell me.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
While companies and their subscribers are slow to let go of the old ways when the cost of scrapping and replacing the old stuff is considered, the US is getting there, albeit not so fast as Mr. Friedman would like.

You think that dropping from 4th in the world to 13th during Bush's term is "getting there"? If nothing else Fantasea, you're very consistent, consistently misinformed...

Here's a lesson. You may wish to write it down. "Because lesser countries make some sorely needed improvements doesn't mean that things have degenerated in the US."

 

[Squawker]

Fantasea is right on the money, Champ. I live in a State with one party rule. Liberals have ruined all economic development in northern Maine. High taxes and unrealistic regulation are their trademarks. If you had a business during the Clinton admin. you would realize how bad Democrats are for the economy. No sense in trying to explain it to you though. You wouldn't listen.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I never called them traitors. However, since you have chosen to use that descriptor, who am I to argue the point? I concede that you must know them far better than I.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive...

Is there some significance to the fact that you have not come to the defense of the socialist-lib-dems? You merely expressed a rather weak denial of my comment.

You've got zero creditability with me so I will not waste my or the community's time defending your stupid accusations.

OK. Now that you have acknowledged that, other than moan about the cuts which have reduced the bill for every income tax payer, what realistic suggestions have they offered to improve the economy which have been ignored by the Administration?

It's the Republican's who are setting the policies now, not Democrats. Regardless of what they or I suggest it would not be taken seriously under the current conditions. Let's see what happens in 2008?

That's exactly what they were in the 50s 60s and early 70s when they were climbing out of their WWII hole.

What does that have to do with BROADBAND & CELLULAR technology? I know! NOTHING! You've once again made a pointless (or is it worthless) comment. It's stupidity such as you're displaying that is causing the US to fall further and further behind in the tech world. The paradigm needs to be changed TODAY or there we will be left in the dust.

Here's a lesson. You may wish to write it down. "Because lesser countries make some sorely needed improvements doesn't mean that things have degenerated in the US."

Just when I thought you had exhausted everything stupid you come up with more lunacy.

"Lesser" countries! You're displaying the exact type of simplistic approach to techno issues as your boy Bush. We're becoming the lesser and they're becoming (or have become) the more. Business is now global, and the countries that advance their abilities to survive in the global market will rule the roost, and those that are too set in their ways will diminish over time into has beens....Let's hope that after Bush leaves office that whomever is next in that seat has a brain? Bush is just a moron when it comes to these issues, he's clueless, and those that defend him are his equal....

 

[Fantasea]

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive...

You've got zero creditability with me so I will not waste my or the community's time defending your stupid accusations.

It's the Republican's who are setting the policies now, not Democrats. Regardless of what they or I suggest it would not be taken seriously under the current conditions. Let's see what happens in 2008?

What does that have to do with BROADBAND & CELLULAR technology? I know! NOTHING! You've once again made a pointless (or is it worthless) comment. It's stupidity such as you're displaying that is causing the US to fall further and further behind in the tech world. The paradigm needs to be changed TODAY or there we will be left in the dust.

Just when I thought you had exhausted everything stupid you come up with more lunacy.

"Lesser" countries! You're displaying the exact type of simplistic approach to techno issues as your boy Bush. We're becoming the lesser and they're becoming (or have become) the more. Business is now global, and the countries that advance their abilities to survive in the global market will rule the roost, and those that are too set in their ways will diminish over time into has beens....Let's hope that after Bush leaves office that whomever is next in that seat has a brain? Bush is just a moron when it comes to these issues, he's clueless, and those that defend him are his equal....

I like the way you cleverly leave out parts of my statements. That way it makes it easy for you to concoct answers that while seemingly supporting your position, are neverthless, the equivilent of the socialist-lib-dems trying to spin their way out of tight spots on the Sunday morning political TV shows.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I like the way you cleverly leave out parts of my statements. That way it makes it easy for you to concoct answers that while seemingly supporting your position, are neverthless, the equivilent of the socialist-lib-dems trying to spin their way out of tight spots on the Sunday morning political TV shows.

No, I simply deleted the truly ridiculous parts of your post that have no bearing on what I'm responding to. I never alter your meaning, no matter how inept or insane, or snip a sentence.

 

[Fantasea]

No, I simply deleted the truly ridiculous parts of your post that have no bearing on what I'm responding to. I never alter your meaning, no matter how inept or insane, or snip a sentence.

And you simply regurgitate ad nauseum the sorry educational results the entire world knows by heart, yet never offer a solution except the standard socialist-lib-dem mantra, "Throw more money at it." And the other alibi, It's not the fault of the system, the parents, or the students, which, I guess, makes it my fault.

What do you think of improving the learning opportunities; clamping down on the classroom troublemakers by insisting on enforcement of reasonable standards for respect, obedience, and discipline?

Since the SCOTUS has already ruled that it is constitutional, what do you think of school vouchers which would enable kids to take money that we spend on them in the lousy schools you complain about and spend it at a school of their choice?