haha..i am so over you....go back to chit chat

10/14/2006 8:40:47 AM

i blame bush for our being in iraq and for our not raising taxes to pay for the war in iraq.

10/14/2006 10:37:49 AM

Quote :

"HURthat has to be the smartest thing i've read in this thread and should apply to all politicians"

So you would like politicians to cling to ideology in the face of reality?

This is one wish that's coming true every day in Washington. Merry Christmas

[Edited on October 14, 2006 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2006 11:38:39 AM

^ So, you go any way the wind blows? Great.

10/14/2006 6:45:56 PM

FUCKING JEWS

10/14/2006 6:51:18 PM

^^ If the winds are blowing to more fertile lands, why not?

10/14/2006 7:01:15 PM

i blame the USSR

10/14/2006 7:30:50 PM

^^ "So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent" (Sir Winston Churchill).

10/15/2006 12:51:39 AM

exactly as it should be.

don't conservatives think there should be a weak central gov't?

10/15/2006 12:59:32 AM

Not "weak" but efficient--and certainly not indecisive. The United States had enough of the latter approach during the Carter years.



[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 2:19 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2006 2:18:12 AM

so you want a strong central gov't?

10/15/2006 2:20:18 AM

^ Can you read?

10/15/2006 2:54:34 AM

all you said was that you don't want a "weak" central gov't. not weak /= strong

10/15/2006 3:14:15 AM

That's simply not true. I posted that I want an efficient and a decisive central government.

10/15/2006 4:24:34 AM

again. that doesn't speak to its strength (ie powers, immunities of members, etc)

10/15/2006 4:29:13 AM

This is an interesting point. Of course, the liberals can be blamed for the higher gas prices quite easily. They have pushed forth greater gas taxes and jacked up these prices in the name of "environmentalism". Who cares for the poor? the anti-tax conservatives, thats who!

10/15/2006 3:49:03 PM

I've been out of town, so sorry this is so late coming

Quote :

"it was a little annoying. but i liked that gas prices were so high. i heard every day people talking about changing the way they did things: buying locally, living closer to where they worked, walking places, using public transport, etc. i wish that people could see the value in these things without being forced into it. but that's not the way it works. and yes i realize that lots of things in the economy take a hit when gas is high. but it's exactly what we need to change our unsustainable ways. "

This is precisely what is so fantastic about the pricing system. Economists have been telling us all for centuries that people will change their ways when the price system tells them to. I'm not sure what you mean by "buying locally" and how it relates to gas prices, but the rest of the things you talked about seem to be substitutes for using gasoline. With high prices, they will switch to the now relatively cheaper substitutes. Unsustainable is true, but no one should seriously think we would sustain it. The price system will fix it for us because eventually someone's going to find a profit waiting in an alternative form of fuel and we'll be all over it.

10/15/2006 4:46:24 PM

buying locally has to do with gasoline in that you buy food (and other items) that were grown (or made) locally because buying an apple that's been trucked across the country is a huge waste.

10/15/2006 4:49:02 PM

what we should learn from this thread:

if you are dumb enough to blame one man w/ no direct control over the market for high prices, then you will get called out by someone who equally as dumb to assert that those making the fallacy should reciprocate a fallacy to those they blamed.

10/15/2006 4:54:28 PM

that motherfucker deserves 0 credit

10/15/2006 10:33:55 PM

^^^^ Agree.

10/16/2006 3:54:43 AM

If you think about it, the premise of this thread is really, really fucking stupid.

10/16/2006 4:15:02 AM

i didnt give bush enough credit at first...i seriously didnt think he would suck as bad as he has over these past 6 years

10/16/2006 4:19:32 AM

^^ Troll, troll, troll your boat lazily 'round the thread / Tryin' to start some fuckin' shit when you ought to be in bed.

10/16/2006 4:27:33 AM

Bridget, I'm not sure how the premise of the thread is stupid. I think the thread was meant more to spark some debate about how the criticism of Bush on a few, key items was unfair. And if it wasn't unfair, then he now deserves credit for their reversals.

Its a good thread and I think the consensus is now "He didn't deserve to be criticized for those items, because they were beyond his control. He deserves no credit for their reversals for the same reason. The same applies to past and future presidents"

How's this thread stupid?

10/16/2006 7:51:51 AM

How is Three Mile Island his fault???

10/16/2006 9:17:08 AM

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=514

Debt saps world power of America
October 15, 2006 (Times Online)

NORTH KOREA’s ability and willingness to set off a nuclear device of some sort is being blamed on a failure of American diplomacy. Never mind that Kim Jong Il’s survival depends on the continued support of China, or that Russia has consistently refused to support moves to pressure North Korea to end its bid to become a nuclear supplier to the world’s jihadists. When it comes to failed diplomacy, there is blame enough to go around.

But when it comes to failed economic policies that produce failed diplomacy, the buck stops in Washington. It is the economic policy of the Bush administration that has hobbled its efforts to veto North Korea’s application to join the nuclear club.

Let’s start with fiscal policy. It is indeed true that the Bush tax cuts were key to ending the recession the Republicans inherited from the Clinton administration. And it is also true that some of the tax cuts have proved to be revenue generators for the Treasury. That has enabled the administration to gloat over a 22% reduction in the budget deficit from last year's $319 billion. But in a booming economy, a continued deficit of $248 billion is hardly chopped liver, as the analysts in New York’s delis are inclined to say. And when those deficits result in stacks of IOUs held by China, America’s diplomats are forced to walk softly lest they antagonise so large a creditor.

It is this fiscal situation, this unwillingness to rein in spending so that the boom in tax receipts can be used to provide support for American diplomacy, that has made it impossible for America to have an effective foreign policy. Indeed, it is arguable that George Bush has presided over the largest decline in America’s ability to influence world events since ... well, since the 1920s, when we decided it was in the nation’s interests to let the world take care of itself while we partied at that era’s equivalents of today’s discos — the jazz joints and speakeasies that offered solace to the Wall Street crowd after a hard day of share-price manipulation.

North Korea was confident that America would not use force to eliminate its nuclear facilities, or to bring its long-range missile programme to a halt, or to stop its counterfeiting of $100 bills — counterfeits so good that they are dubbed “superdollars” and can be detected only when they turn up at Federal Reserve banks. After all, even that country’s cloistered politicians can see that the Bush team is unwilling to commit the resources needed to bring the Iraq intervention to a successful conclusion.

Rather than call on the American people to make some sacrifices, in the form of higher taxes, the president invited them to visit the shopping malls more often. And if consumers didn’t have the cash to buy that new flat-screen television set, the Federal Reserve chairman was keeping interest rates so low that borrowing was easy and it was irrational to build up equity in your house rather than remortgage to fund shopping sprees.

So America is already stretched, not beyond its capacity to implement Bush’s vision of a democratic and reconstructed Iraq, or to act on North Korea if tough talking fails, but beyond what the same president is willing to call upon our citizens to sacrifice. Unlike Thomas Jefferson, who pledged millions for defence but not a cent for tribute when our commerce was threatened by pirates, Bush has pledged billions for prescription drugs for well-off elderly Americans, and more billions for congressmen’s wasteful pet projects, but little for the military he asks to back his diplomatic drive to spread democratic values.

There is worse. The president’s energy policy consists of begging Opec not to cut back on oil production so that petrol prices will ease. Meanwhile, he has allowed America’s addiction to oil to weaken his diplomatic hand in Latin America and the Middle East. Revenues from American oil consumption are funding Hugo Chávez’s campaigns to elect anti-American politicians in Ecuador and Nicaragua, and his trips to meet his old pal Fidel Castro and his new friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Revenues go from American petrol stations to Caracas and to Saudi sheiks, who fund madrasas where anti-Western bile is poured into the ears of potential terrorists.

Experts agree that the best way to reduce this source of terrorist financing would be a swingeing tax on petrol, but that would require the president to demand sacrifice of the American people, something he is unprepared to do.

Meanwhile, the American economy continues to tick along, unfazed by the failures of US diplomacy. If markets are indeed all-knowing machines that correctly appraise future risk, then the robust performance of share prices tells us not to fret unduly over a nuclear North Korea, an Iraq descending into murderous civil war, an Iran that is preparing to acquire its own nuclear weapon as part of its stated plan to eliminate Israel, or a cooling of the housing market.

AntiSpin: When you owe money to the mob, it's hard to take firm action when the nutter in The Family starts acting up. The political implications of the USA's reckless fiscal policies have only begun to come home to roost. In addition to expending most of the nation's moral authority–squandered on a horrifically botched War in Iraq and impending failure in Afghanistan–to bring thugs and fascists to heel, USA, Inc. has lost an even more important critical policy tool in the short term: financial leverage.

Demand that China reign in North Korea? "What are you going to do?" the Chinese will ask the US, "Threaten not to borrow more from us?"

This is a tough piece. Unfortunately, we have to agree with every word.

10/16/2006 10:26:13 AM

^^^

10/16/2006 10:44:31 AM

Quote :

"And when those deficits result in stacks of IOUs held by China, America’s diplomats are forced to walk softly lest they antagonise so large a creditor. "

I found the faulty logic.

The Chinese are our creditors, but it isn't like we gave them collateral. They can't come take our homes if we don't pay up. Not that I think we won't, but I don't see how antogonizing them is a problem. And you forget that they aren't really in the mood to fuck with the U.S. either, considering that we buy up a HUGE chunk of their goods. If we didn't buy these goods, they would be fucked to high heaven. We're the one's with the bagaining chips in this negotiation.

Nice try though, for liberals.

10/16/2006 1:53:38 PM

Quote :

"I found the faulty logic. The Chinese are our creditors, but it isn't like we gave them collateral. They can't come take our homes if we don't pay up. Not that I think we won't, but I don't see how antogonizing them is a problem. And you forget that they aren't really in the mood to fuck with the U.S. either, considering that we buy up a HUGE chunk of their goods. If we didn't buy these goods, they would be fucked to high heaven. We're the one's with the bagaining chips in this negotiation. Nice try though, for liberals."

They do have collateral. It's called a bond. And we have to pay it back or the worth of the U.S. dollar decreases dramatically and we are screwed. If the Chinese (along with the Japanese the only ones still buying) stop buying bonds, who is going to finance our debt? The Fed could print more money, but that would curtail massive inflation and you and I would lose half our worth as that dollar in your wallet became worth $0.50. The government could raise taxes, but it'll be a cold day in hell before George W. Bush does that. At the end of the day someone has to pay the bill, and you do not bite the hand that feeds you.

And to show I'm not spouting hot air, for the first time ever, in October the U.S. government announced they paid more to foreign creditors in the second quarter than it received in foreign investment (i.e. bonds).

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/TheFinancialTrapFacingTheUSChina.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0

(p.s. in the past, the author of the article you called a liberal described himself as libertarian)

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 3:33 PM. Reason : /]

10/16/2006 3:19:58 PM

Quote :

" They do have collateral. It's called a bond. And we have to pay it back or the worth of the U.S. dollar decreases dramatically and we are screwed."

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between unsecured and secured debt.

Also, you apparantly have no idea how interest rates on Treasuries work. When people's faith in our ability to pay back the bonds (or any other reason that makes our bonds less attractive to their preferences) the interest rate will go up. Our treasury rate is still EXTREMELY low. The reason for that is that we have no trouble floating our bonds. You're sadly mistaken that the Chinese and the Japanese are the only buyers of our bonds.

And the "proof" is nothing more than pointing out that we're now net borrowers to the globe rather than net lenders. Do you know what that means? It means people from the globe find our government bonds a more attractive investment than we find all the other government bonds in the entire world. It doesn't mean we're going down the tubes and spiraling out of control.

Do you freak out when you have a mortgage, but you don't own any bonds that pay enough interest to cover it?

_________________
PS: I'm libertarian too and our party is just as susceptible as the rest to having people who know nothing about economics pretend to spout it.

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2006 4:09:07 PM

Quote :

"You're sadly mistaken that the Chinese and the Japanese are the only buyers of our bonds. And the "proof" is nothing more than pointing out that we're now net borrowers to the globe rather than net lenders. Do you know what that means? It means people from the globe find our government bonds a more attractive investment than we find all the other government bonds in the entire world. It doesn't mean we're going down the tubes and spiraling out of control."

You have to be large enough to matter, and countries other than China and Japan are getting rid of dollars. You're not going to agree with me regardless of what I argue or if I say 2+2=4, so I'll just quit cause there's no point.

My whole point was to the person's original post wondering why Bush wasn't getting credit for the economy. It's because the media doesn't like Bush, but even if they did like Bush, he still should get no credit, cause our economy right now sucks. What's going on now is just a typical pre-election blip so people would feel good going to the ballot box.

Here's an article from August that highlights what I'm talking about.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060803/3/2nzd0.html

Quote :

"ROME, Aug 3 (Reuters) - Italy's central bank has slashed its U.S. dollar holdings and switched a quarter of its reserves into the British pound, the Bank of Italy showed in its half-year report. Foreign exchange strategists said the announcement underlines the importance of a trend away from the dollar, long forecast to tumble under the weight of the massive U.S. current account deficit and the near end to Federal Reserve rate tightening. Central banks, with more than $4 trillion of FX reserves, are now key players in the $2 trillion-a-day currency market. The emerging market economies of Asia and the Middle East have already started lowering their dollar exposure. Sweden too has joined in, while the European Central Bank cut its exposure earlier. Its U.S. dollar holdings were broadly stable from mid-2004 through mid-2005 after falling to 85 percent of its 41 billion euros from just under 90 percent in 1999. No current data are available. Currency strategists said they were watching closely which currency picked up the mantle, as the move from the dollar as the favoured global currency gathered pace. "The broad point about the reserve story is that it is about diversification out of dollar given the risks. The pound seemingly is increasing in prominence as an alternative," said Tim Fox, FX strategist at Dresdner Kleinwort in London. ADVERTISEMENT Whether sterling will retain its appeal, however, depends on its yield advantage as central banks weigh the direction of interest rates, he added. Italy said it had cut the share of its dollar reserves to 63 percent from 84 percent and also trimmed reserves in the Japanese yen, while holdings of sterling rose to 25 percent from zero in 2004. At the end of the first half of 2006 the value of official reserves was equal to 61.2 billion euros ($79 billion). Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper cited an Italian official as saying the Bank of Italy was acting in advance of an expected slide in the dollar as the Federal Reserve prepares to end a two-year credit tightening campaign, leading investors to focus again on a gaping U.S. current account deficit. WORRIES Worries about central banks diversifying their reserves away from the dollar have dogged the U.S. currency in the past few years. There is particular fear that massive dollar stockpiles Asian central banks have built up to prevent their domestic currencies from strengthening may not be sustainable in light of the huge U.S. current account deficit. China's reserves have swelled by more than $120 billion in the first six months of the year to $941.1 billion, the world's biggest, as Beijing's tight control of the yuan forced it to buy dollars coming in from trade surpluses and investment. Countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Russia have said they are shifting out of dollars and into other currencies like the euro. Through March this year, global central bank reserves totalled $4.347 trillion, more than doubling in just two years, according to data from the International Monetary Fund. Sixty six percent of allocated reserves were in dollars and 25 percent in euros, compared with 71 percent and 14 percent respectively when the single European currency was launched in 1999. The IMF data also showed the pound overtaking the yen to be the world's third biggest reserve currency. Some traders said the report may have helped sterling gain briefly in Asia trade. The pound traded at $1.8755 at 0438 GMT, down slightly on the day and pulling away from a two-month high of $1.8798 struck on Wednesday. Last year the pound fell 10 percent against the dollar, having surged some 30 percent in a three-year rally through 2004. Sweden's central bank said in April it had cut its allocation of sterling to 10 percent from 11 percent, while it boosted its euro holdings to 50 percent from 37. The Riksbank cut its dollar holdings to 20 percent from 37."

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 5:44 PM. Reason : /]

10/16/2006 5:41:28 PM

I will agree with you if you make an economic point.

But thinking that our economy is not healthy right now is just sadly mistaken.

Also, do you think that Canada has a shitty economy because its dollar isn't held by Central Banks of other countries?

10/16/2006 5:44:44 PM

^ My economic point is that the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations and Congress have done nothing to make our country more financially sound. They have continued to spend and spend and spend without paying the bill. How very typical of their generation those two presidents' administrations are.

At some point, the bill has to be paid. And where is the money? The money is explained off by stating "manyana, manyana". People are unwilling to partake in sacrifice, and so they elect politicians that are modern-day versions of Marie Antoinette. "Have your cake and eat it too". Republicans were elected in 1994 because people were sick of Democrats and no longer thought they could guide the country on the continued road to prosperity. Are we any better now than we were in 1994?

This article is written by a person more knowledgeable than me on a site I read, and he puts it better than I can.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/daily/2006/1013a.html

Quote :

"We don't know what to make of it, so we turn to the dead for an opinion. But it is hopeless, the corpses know even less than we do. They can't even imagine what is happening. Borrow against your house when you don't have to? Buy a house as an "investment?" Take out "equity?" "Depend on foreigners to balance your budget?" "Live beyond your means and expect Third World wage earners to make up the difference?" The ideas that Americans once took for absurd, they now take for granted. What was wrong with our parents, grandparents, and long-dead ancestors? Why weren't they smart enough to realize that they could have a brand-new house with all the modern conveniences without paying for it? Why didn't they figure out that they could all get rich by buying each others' houses? But now, thank God, we are all geniuses. The baby born when the empire began in 1913 came into the world with nothing. But he owed nothing. Now, he comes into the world owing his share of 37 trillion; that's about $128,560 with his name on it. Is he richer? Is he better off? What would the dead say? That doesn't include his share of Federal obligations and commitments that he'll have to pay, which could add $100,000 more."

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 6:24 PM. Reason : /]

10/16/2006 6:17:37 PM

The Dow surpasses the 12,000 mark! Thanks, President Bush!

10/19/2006 11:52:30 AM

Quote :

""manyana, manyana""

I think you meant "mañana, mañana."

Or maybe "macaca, macaca."

10/19/2006 12:21:26 PM

Quote :

"My economic point is that the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations and Congress have done nothing to make our country more financially sound."

I haven't read much of this debate you two are having, just noticed this:

So the surplus we had under Clinton wasn't a good thing?

10/19/2006 12:27:33 PM

average raises have not met inflation of the past years. thanks bush!

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 12:28:36 PM

But average health care costs have far outpaced inflation, so he has that going for him.

10/19/2006 12:33:30 PM

^^ Always looking for negative shit just because you don't like President Bush. My point was that Bush doesn't deserve credit for the record Dow--just like he doesn't deserve blame for the other things he doesn't control.

10/19/2006 12:43:10 PM

Quote :

"average raises have not met inflation of the past years. thanks bush!"

Hey, why don't you look at total compensation. It may well have fallen, but only an idiot confuses wages and total compensation.

10/19/2006 1:05:38 PM

and why has total compensation risen?

oh yeah. health care has gone through the roof.

10/19/2006 1:08:19 PM

Yes, and he all know that Bush directly controls the cost of healthcare, and gasoline, and natural gas, and EVERYTHING!

Look, shut the fuck up and go do the research first. I'm not sure if TC has risen. What about all the other benefits though? Don't you think you should look into it before you complain?

Oh wait, you're a liberal, so no.

10/19/2006 1:19:22 PM

i heard this on the news a few days ago. i looked for a few minutes and couldn't find a similar link online.

and they did talk about total compensation and wages (that was actually why i edited to "wages" to begin with)

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 1:20:54 PM

the market should have control over wages, not a politician. sarijoul understands that politicians have control over this, but his assertion that bush has an kind of direct fault is ridiculous.

10/19/2006 2:35:54 PM

DJIA reaches new highs the day after Democrats take control of the House and possibly the Senate!

11/8/2006 4:56:45 PM

Oh by the way, wage inflation is high now that ATC is rising without corresponding changes in productivity.

Oh the humanity.

11/8/2006 5:08:59 PM

Republicans talk about the great economy, but I get the impression that it's great mostly for investors.

Productivity is up, but not wages. Corporations are able to pit American workers against the lowest wages in a global economy - hence the all-time high in the stock market. It's great evironment for investors.

It turns out that I happened on a New York Times article from the end of August 2006 talking about what effects negative wage growth might have on the mid-term elections ... foresight sometimes is 20/20.

Quote :

"With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers. That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year’s midterm elections even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years. The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period. As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.” Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer, however, the value of workers’ benefits has also failed to keep pace with inflation, according to government data. At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising. In a speech on Friday, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not specifically discuss wages, but he warned that the unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,” Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.” Political analysts are divided over how much the wage trends will help Democrats this fall in their effort to take control of the House and, in a bigger stretch, the Senate. Some see parallels to watershed political years like 1980, 1992 and 1994, when wage growth fell behind inflation, party alignments shifted and dozens of incumbents were thrown out of office. “It’s a dangerous time for any party to have control of the federal government — the presidency, the Senate and the House,” said Charles Cook, who publishes a nonpartisan political newsletter. “It all feeds into ‘it’s a time for a change’ sentiment. It’s a highly combustible mixture.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1163134800&en=de55bb05a0a1709e&ei=5070

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 11:37 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

11/8/2006 11:36:19 PM