- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,536
- Reaction score
- 429
- Location
- Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
Typical, can't dispute the truth, so instead attack the messenger. That's a stance that is as weak as Bush's economic policies....Squawker said:**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.
Running uphill is always slower than jumping off the moutain.26 X World Champs said: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."
SourceThe 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)
No, that is an untruth. In the very first paragraph, introducing the piece I wrote:vauge said: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.
I call that full disclosure. I then expressed my opinion. Tell me, what in that piece is not factual? Please be specific?Tom Friedman published a timely OP-ED piece in today's NY Times.
Squawker said:Bush bashing is a lot more fun for the lefties than the truth, but what ta heck.
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.anomaly said: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.
While Mr. Friedman's comments may be taken at face value, several things come to mind.26 X World Champs said: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:
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!Fantasea said: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.
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?Fantasea said: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.
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."Fantasea said: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.)
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 said: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.
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.26 X World Champs said:Quote:
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!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.
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.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.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.
You want more? Haven't you had enough?What's next on your hit parade? What other evilness do you want to attribute to Liberals?
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?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."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.)
How crazy can it be if it can be defended?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!
You do recall, I'm sure that the Clinton burst bubble recession was well under way on the day of GWB's first inauguration.Tell you what, when Clinton was President the economy was great. Now that Bush is President the economy sucks.
That's exactly what they were in the 50s 60s and early 70s when they were climbing out of their WWII hole.Your logic about other countries infrastructure is, surprise, wrong! Japan and South Korea are not developing nations! You called them EMERGING COUNTRIES!
Yes, today they are, aren't they.They are 1st world countries that devoted their resources to future technology because they're visionary.
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.Bush, on the other hand isn't even capable of programming his iPod!
No. But I'm sure you're itching to tell me.Remember Bush's techno-intelligent comment during the debate about the "INTERNETS"?
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."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...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.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive...Fantasea said: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.
You've got zero creditability with me so I will not waste my or the community's time defending your stupid accusations.Fantasea said: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.
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?Fantasea said: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?
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.Fantasea said:That's exactly what they were in the 50s 60s and early 70s when they were climbing out of their WWII hole.
Just when I thought you had exhausted everything stupid you come up with more lunacy.Fantasea said: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."
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 said: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....
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 said: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.
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.26 X World Champs said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?