[Bluebomber21XX]

Not mine, but this is probably of interest to you guys. It is for me.



George W. Bush Resume

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher "B" movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in
Texas, company went
bankrupt shortly after.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a
sweetheart deal that took land
using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy
Sosa to the Chicago White
Cubs.

With father's help and name, was elected Governor of
Texas.


ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies
and made Texas the most
polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles
with Houston as the most
smog-ridden city in America.

Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the
tune of billions in
borrowed money.

Set record for most executions by any Governor in
American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by
over 500,000 votes, with
the help of father's appointments to the Supreme
Court.


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in
history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies
filed in any 12-month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history
of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal
prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a
criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for
most days on vacation by
any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August 2001 off for vacation,
presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips
than any other
president in US history.

In first two years in office, over 2 million
Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work
Americans than any president
in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a
12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than
any president in US history.

Set the record for the smallest number of press
conferences of any
president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than
any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crisis in US
history and refused to
intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US
history and refused to use
the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut health care benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
take to the streets
simultaneously to protest policies (15 million
people), shattering the
record for protest against any person in the history
of mankind.

Dissolved more international treaties than any
president in US history.

Most secretive and un-accountable presidency of any
in US history.

Cabinet members are the richest of any
administration in US history
(the'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice had
a Chevron oil tanker
named after her).

First president in US history to have all 50 states
of the Union
simultaneously headed towards bankruptcy.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market
fraud of any market in any
country in the history of the world.

First president in US history to order a US attack
and military occupation
of a sovereign nation.

Created the largest government department
bureaucracy in the history of the
United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget
spending increases, more
than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United
Nations remove the US from
the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United
Nations remove the US from
the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least
amount of
congressional oversight than any presidential
administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners
of war and by default no
longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United
Nations election inspectors
(during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most
corporate campaign donations.

Biggest lifetime campaign contributor presided over
one of the largest
corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history
(Kenneth Lay, former CEO of
Enron Corporation, now a convicted felon).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any
president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack
a sovereign nation
against the will of the United Nations and the world
community.

First president to run and hide when the US came
under attack (and then
lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1).

First US president to establish a secret shadow
government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after
9/11, and in less than a
year made the US the most resented country in the
world (possibly the
biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement,' created the most
hostile
Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

First US president in history to have a majority of
the people of
Europe(71%) view presidency as the biggest threat to
world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of
South Korea more
threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor,
North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be
awarded government
contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration
appointees who violated US
law by not selling huge investments in corporations
bidding for government
contracts.

Failed to fulfill pledge to get Osama Bin Laden
'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to
murder the leaders of our
country at the United States Capitol building. After
18 months there are no
leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 9/11 attacks,
successfully prevented any
public investigation into the biggest security
failure in the history of
the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for
Americans than any other
president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided
country in decades,
possibly the most divided the US has ever been since
the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US
history and in less than
two years turned every single economic category
heading straight down.


RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine
(Texas driving record
has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and deserted the military
during a time of war.

Refused to take drug test or even answer any
questions about drug use.

All records of tenure as governor of Texas have been
spirited away to
father's library, sealed in secrecy, and unavailable
for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into personal
insider trading or
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and
unavailable for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation
in which Bush served on
the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for
public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings Bush or his
vice president attended
regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy
and unavailable for public

[Spheric Harlot]

Been there, done that...twice.

-s*

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Been there, done that...twice.

-s*

but it's just soooo tasty

[nvaughan3]

If this is of interest to you than you are dumber than I thought.

[chabig]

This thread is officially closed.

[vmarks]

Alternatively:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

[Spliffdaddy]

and despite ALL THAT... he beat Al Gore

[MacGorilla]

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Alternatively:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.

Daddy's school... his father was a Phi Beta Kappa. making it much easier for him... then me or you.

He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard.

Defending texas from the Mexicans.

[quote]He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986.[quote]
Just like dad!

He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote.

Only got the majority after his fathers backing.

In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

Now who was he running against during these elections... and what was their known history/beliefs?

Did he execute prisoners to bring his approval rating up? Taking advantage of an office for political gain? YES.


But then again... he can't have that low of an IQ. He got the enough of the country to buy his BS. He even got a known white suppremisist John Ashcroft as his Attorney General! If that isn't a sign of intelegence, and excelent maneuvering... what is?


I don't buy his "life story", since he was mooching off his parents. Al Gore did the same thing. Making them the most pathetic group of idiots to ever run for office.

I respect John McCain... went through a lot, including cancer... and still ticking.

Colin Powell... doesn't give a crap what people thinks... goes by his guns... grew up with everything against him... beat the odds.

Clinton had personal problem (sexual to name one)... but had good work ethic (in early, left late), and knew what the country needed in terms of reform. Beyond his obvious personal troubles, and lack of good judgement in those case... he did a good job politically, just didn't get as far as he should have, thanks to how sidetracked the nation got on his personal issues. Good foreign policy. He knew Al-Queda/Iraq/Somalia/Isarel/Palestine could pose serious risks to the US... and attempted to keep them all in check without getting to involved, and putting the US at risk.


You want some real bad presidents:
JFK - rich guy, out of touch with the vast majority of the US. If it wasn't for his own people betraying him, he would have led us to nuclear war. He thought he was invincible. Sad he got shot (personal level), but good for the nation overall.

Regain - foreign policy was the worst of all presidents combined. He set the groundworks for conflicts that would lead to 9/11.

Hoover - tried to avoid serious problems until they blew up in his face.


Good presidents:
George Washington. - smart and keen. Knew political parties were a bad idea, and predicted many of the issues we face even today. That was over 200 years ago.

FDR - knew how to get the government and economy moving.

Nixon - wasn't a bad president. Did nothing wrong. Just got caught doing what everyone else did. It's like a speeding ticket. Everyone goes a few miles over the limit. But every blue moon, the pull someone over to make a point.

Carter - actually was a great president. His economic plan was good for the long term, and avoided a large recession/depression... but the short turn *had* to suffer a bit to avoid this fate... as a result it cost him reelection. But to his credit, he avoided serious problems for the US. Foreign policy was/still is very good.



BTW: Beating Gore is not really an accomplishment. It's like having a fist fight with a fedus.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Regain - foreign policy was the worst of all presidents combined. He set the groundworks for conflicts that would lead to 9/11.

President Regain? Is that what happens when your party loses the White House to a peanut farmer and then get is back again after 4 miserable years?

Incidentally, I don't know what having a father who was a Phi Beta Kappa would have to do with a legacy's chances of getting into Harvard or Yale. Generally, a legacy's pull has nothing to do with his GPA. PBK isn't a secret society any more, its just an academic honor society. Besides, was George HW Bush PBK? I have never heard that. Bear in mind, he had to drop out of college to go to war.

A lot of your other assertions are just a little too unique to you to really deal with. For example, Ashcroft is a known religious conservative, but certainly not a white supremacist. Trust me on that. I know people who work with him and who are themselves people of color. Whatever else you might say about him, he's no racist.

BTW, i just love your Carter revision. I guess the invasion of Afghanistan, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and the year long hostage crisis of 52 American diplomats, none of those things happened? Or were you just too young to remember?

[chabig]

This guy can't even spell yet he feels qualified to question GW's intelligence?

[Bluebomber21XX]

Originally posted by chabig:
This guy can't even spell yet he feels qualified to question GW's intelligence?

Give me a break, it's one word. I'm sure you're not perfect either.

[tie]

Originally posted by Bluebomber21XX:
Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/07/berlow.htm

This article is interesting reading on this point.

Bush apparently never read clemency petitions from death-row inmates, relying instead on short summaries and 30-minute briefing from his legal counsel, Gonzales, on the day of the execution. He signed a memo that is (was?) missing a page. At one point, Gonzales reportedly notified the inmates's representative that the petition would be rejected -- a week before Bush was briefed on it.

In the case of David Wayne Stoker, for example, Gonzales devoted just eighteen sentences to the extraordinarily complex circumstances of the crime, leaving out essentially all the mitigating evidence and failing to address a multitude of questions about both the evidence against Stoker and his due-process rights. Ronnie Thompson, a key state witness, initially told the police, and then the court, that Stoker had confessed to a 1986 murder. But following Stoker's conviction Thompson recanted, explaining that he'd lied in court because the prosecutor had threatened to bring a perjury charge against him if he didn't stick to his original account. Bush should have been told that. During Stoker's trial, in 1987, Thompson's wife, Debbie, left him to move in with Carey Todd, the prosecution's chief witness; she got a piece of the Crime Stoppers reward that Todd received for naming Stoker. Gonzales failed to mention that drug and weapons charges against Todd were dropped the very day he testified against Stoker; and that Todd thus had an apparent motive for setting him up. Gonzales also failed to mention that a state investigator, a police officer, and Todd all lied in court about what Todd received for his testimony; that the jury wasn't told about Todd's possible motive for framing Stoker; and that James Grigson, a psychiatrist who testified that Stoker was a sociopath who would "absolutely" be violent again (thereby making him eligible for a death sentence), had never even examined Stoker. Grigson, whose expert testimony has helped send dozens of men to death row, earning him the nickname Dr. Death, had been expelled from the American Psychiatric Association two years before the Stoker case was reviewed by Gonzales and Bush, because his testimony had repeatedly been found to be unethical. Another expert medical witness against Stoker, Ralph Erdmann, had relinquished his medical license in 1994 after pleading no contest to seven felonies tied to falsified evidence and botched autopsies. A special prosecutor's investigation of Erdmann concluded that he falsified evidence in at least thirty cases, and that if "the prosecution theory was that death was caused by a Martian death ray then that was what Dr. Erdmann reported." All this information was in the public record, yet Gonzales mentioned none of it in his memorandum to Bush.

The one case in which Bush made a serious review was that of Karla Faye Tucker, in 1998, even though she admitted her guilt.

More than anything else, the Tucker case illustrates how Bush sought to deny responsibility for executions. "I could not convert Karla Faye Tucker's sentence from death to life in prison [without the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles]," Bush stated, citing Texas law. ... Of course, Bush did intervene in the subsequent Lucas case before hearing from the BPP.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Carter - actually was a great president. His economic plan was good for the long term, and avoided a large recession/depression... but the short turn *had* to suffer a bit to avoid this fate...

The short term had to suffer A BIT? Is that the polite way of describing double digit inflation throughout Carter's entire presidency?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
The short term had to suffer A BIT? Is that the polite way of describing double digit inflation throughout Carter's entire presidency?

You must have no clue how bad the country was headed then.

That was a fraction of a percent what was in store for the country. What he did set a presidence to never let the economy get to such a state again. It's now much more stable and regulated. No as much up and down as there was then.

A good president.

Funny thing is if he failed. Ronny would have taken all the heat, as it would have all landed on his lap. It would have been Ronny's fault.

Sad how presidents take heat for stuff that really they shouldn't.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Best thing Carter did was lose.

[voodoo]

well, they get to be presidents. :/

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Carter - actually was a great president. His economic plan was good for the long term, and avoided a large recession/depression... but the short turn *had* to suffer a bit to avoid this fate... as a result it cost him reelection. But to his credit, he avoided serious problems for the US. Foreign policy was/still is very good.

yea you have to be kidding ... please tell me you are kidding???

carter drove the interest rates to astronomical levels... but that is good in the long run?

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
President Regain? Is that what happens when your party loses the White House to a peanut farmer and then get is back again after 4 miserable years?

Incidentally, I don't know what having a father who was a Phi Beta Kappa would have to do with a legacy's chances of getting into Harvard or Yale. Generally, a legacy's pull has nothing to do with his GPA. PBK isn't a secret society any more, its just an academic honor society. Besides, was George HW Bush PBK? I have never heard that. Bear in mind, he had to drop out of college to go to war.

A lot of your other assertions are just a little too unique to you to really deal with. For example, Ashcroft is a known religious conservative, but certainly not a white supremacist. Trust me on that. I know people who work with him and who are themselves people of color. Whatever else you might say about him, he's no racist.

BTW, i just love your Carter revision. I guess the invasion of Afghanistan, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and the year long hostage crisis of 52 American diplomats, none of those things happened? Or were you just too young to remember?

I don't know so much about Carter. I think he genuinely wanted peace and actually gave a damn about human life. His attitude on South Africa was much less appeasing as Reagan's was. As for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, what should he have done? He condemned it and tried to get political censure of the Soviets at the UN, which they blocked of course. There also had been the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Checkoslovakia in 1968, in which no one did anything, so it's not exactly like it was the first time. What do you think the revolution in Iran was caused by? The Iranians were sick and tired of an American supported despotic monarch, who had gained his throne due to US and UK intervention. They kicked him out, and had a beef against the US. I know no one played fairly then, like they don't now, but the US really only had itself to blame for what happened in Iran.

Going to war with the Soviets would have not been an option in 1979, as the Soviets were very strong then, and it would have gone nuclear. Carter would also not have gone to war over Iran as you conveniently forget that Vietnam had only come to an end in 1975, and was very present in the US mind, and no one was very keen on massive loss of US lives.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
yea you have to be kidding ... please tell me you are kidding???

carter drove the interest rates to astronomical levels... but that is good in the long run?

It cut people's spending, and kept everything where it should be.

Inflation is good because it keeps everything in check.

Just like a national debt isn't always bad... in fact, during certain times. It's a great thing. And during certain times it's a bad thing. There are times where it have catastrophic consequences for there to be no national debt. The surplus would actually do harm!


Inflation is considered to be a dirty word... but it isn't always bad. All Carter did was keep the dollar strong in the long term.

We could have waited a while, and taken a depression. Would that have been better? It had the potential to rival the great depression. Surely your not suggesting that's a better alternative to a few years of cutting back on consumer spending.


It all goes back to economic cycles. ups and downs are normal. Growth for too long is just as bad as no growth. The great thing about the US economy is that it bounces back. It's strong enough that when something happens, it's not the end of our economy. During no point since the great depression were times so bad that civil war broke out.

Carter did nothing wrong. He actually made the right move. What's unique is that he saw into the future and reacted.

Most presidents have not done this. They let the next president deal with the problem... when it's to late.

The great depression was 100% avoidable. And was even predicted. But nobody cared. It was always "for the next guy".

Just be glad the dollar is a very stable currency. It's based on the fact that it's stable, and universally accepted. Why? becuase it's manged well. Carter proved this.

People who didn't do to good of a job with economics were 2nd term Clinton, and George W. Bush... Clinton didn't care about the boom going bust, since it was his last term in office. He should have pushed congress into generating some nice taxes, and getting that interest rate up high. Curb the spending before it got out of control.

He didn't, because the good times made him look great.

Bush on the other hand, had to deal with the fallout. It's the big thorne in his side. His tax cuts, were the silly "solution" to the problem... when it's really out of his hands more than anything. What he should be focusing on is making some friends outside the US, and get some trade going again. But instead, he just bombs potential customers, or cuts of relations because they don't like him. The whole war situation has caused economic uncertainty, since nobody knows what's going to happen. That's the only involvement Bush has had with the economic situation. He just doesn't make that room for it to stabalize.


What would have been good would have been if Clinton taxed the living S*** out of those who made cash during the good times. That would have curbed some excessive growth, and led to more stable times now... and the extra cash for the debt (then surplus) would have led to more stable times as well.

But that's really in retrospect thinking in the future. CLinton saw it as "i'm almost out of here, let them remember my years in office as 'the good years'".

Stinks when people do that.

[nvaughan3]

What would have been good would have been if Clinton taxed the living S*** out of those who made cash during the good times.

Um...he did. He actually said in '95 he thought he went too far.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
I don't know so much about Carter. I think he genuinely wanted peace and actually gave a damn about human life. His attitude on South Africa was much less appeasing as Reagan's was. As for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, what should he have done? He condemned it and tried to get political censure of the Soviets at the UN, which they blocked of course. There also had been the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Checkoslovakia in 1968, in which no one did anything, so it's not exactly like it was the first time. What do you think the revolution in Iran was caused by? The Iranians were sick and tired of an American supported despotic monarch, who had gained his throne due to US and UK intervention. They kicked him out, and had a beef against the US. I know no one played fairly then, like they don't now, but the US really only had itself to blame for what happened in Iran.

Going to war with the Soviets would have not been an option in 1979, as the Soviets were very strong then, and it would have gone nuclear. Carter would also not have gone to war over Iran as you conveniently forget that Vietnam had only come to an end in 1975, and was very present in the US mind, and no one was very keen on massive loss of US lives.

I don't blame any of those things (Iran, Afghanistan) on Carter personally directly. Especially not Iran, which had been brewing for decades, and which was largely the fault of decades of abusive US policy toward that country. What I take issue with is the idea that Carter's years were this pleasant little interlude. In fact, many of the problems we are dealing with now had their origins in the Carter years. To take a couple of examples, the invasion of Afghanistan lead by a circuitous route to the rise of the Taliban there. That's not Carter's fault, but it is the sequence of events. Carter's response was the Carter Doctrine. The failure by April Glaspie to remember that lead to the first Gulf War. The origins of that also have their roots in the tilt toward Iraq, which began as a result of the Iranian Revolution, and fears of Shiaa fundamentalism as demonstrated by the hostage crisis.

Carter's basic problem was always his weakness. People took advantage of that, and internationally it translated into US weakness. I can't say that had there been a different president in the White House that the USSR would not have invaded Afghanistan, for example. The US was weakened by many things - not least of which, Vietnam, and Watergate. But Carter still gave off an aura of indecisiveness. Desert One came to symbolize that for many. It is why he had to go and why the tide didn't begin to turn until he had.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't blame any of those things (Iran, Afghanistan) on Carter personally directly. Especially not Iran, which had been brewing for decades, and which was largely the fault of decades of abusive US policy toward that country. What I take issue with is the idea that Carter's years were this pleasant little interlude. In fact, many of the problems we are dealing with now had their origins in the Carter years. To take a couple of examples, the invasion of Afghanistan lead by a circuitous route to the rise of the Taliban there. That's not Carter's fault, but it is the sequence of events. Carter's response was the Carter Doctrine. The failure by April Glaspie to remember that lead to the first Gulf War. The origins of that also have their roots in the tilt toward Iraq, which began as a result of the Iranian Revolution, and fears of Shiaa fundamentalism as demonstrated by the hostage crisis.

Carter's basic problem was always his weakness. People took advantage of that, and internationally it translated into US weakness. I can't say that had there been a different president in the White House that the USSR would not have invaded Afghanistan, for example. The US was weakened by many things - not least of which, Vietnam, and Watergate. But Carter still gave off an aura of indecisiveness. Desert One came to symbolize that for many. It is why he had to go and why the tide didn't begin to turn until he had.

I'll just have to disagree with this. I think you forget two periods of Reagan's presidency (8 years) in which not only were the Mujahidin funded and trained by the USA, one of whom was OBL, but also that the USA was very supportive of Saddam's war against Iran which also ran at exactly the same time as Reagan was president.

Carter was weak, but he isn't responsible for what Reagan's administration did.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
I'll just have to disagree with this. I think you forget two periods of Reagan's presidency (8 years) in which not only were the Mujahidin funded and trained by the USA, one of whom was OBL, but also that the USA was very supportive of Saddam's war against Iran which also ran at exactly the same time as Reagan was president.

Carter was weak, but he isn't responsible for what Reagan's administration did.

We are arguing about nothing. But for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Reagan's CIA (and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et al) would not have been involved in supporting the Mujehedeen in Afghanistan. I'm not fixing blame, just fixing the sequence of events.

I personally think that Carter was weak, and that his weakness was exploted by Brezhnev, among others. I also think that Reagan was appropriately strong and was respected, if not liked for it. The mistake in Afghanistan, if any, was made later, when the world turned away after the Soviets withdrew. The civil war that followed led to (among other things) the creation of OBL's network. That may have been unavoidable, or it may have been avoidable. But in any case we will never know, and since no historical event ever has only one origin, it would be simplistic to try to assign blame on any particular president, be it Carter, Reagan, or Bush, Sr.

In any case, all I was reacting to was this idea that Carter's Administration presided over some kind of peaceful interregnum that has no links to the problems we are dealing with today. That's rubbish. The sequence of events leads directly back to events on Carter's watch.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by theolein:
I'll just have to disagree with this. I think you forget two periods of Reagan's presidency (8 years) in which not only were the Mujahidin funded and trained by the USA, one of whom was OBL, but also that the USA was very supportive of Saddam's war against Iran which also ran at exactly the same time as Reagan was president.

Carter was weak, but he isn't responsible for what Reagan's administration did.

Yet, you still can't hold Reagan responsible for today's political climate in the Middle East. At the time, thwarting communism was in the United States' best interests. Reagan could not have possibly known the lasting effects of supporting Iraq or Afghanistan in the early Eighties. Using your rationale, you would have to say that FDR's administration is completely responsible for the Cold War, since FDR waited two years before opening up the second front on Germany during WW2.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Yet, you still can't hold Reagan responsible for today's political climate in the Middle East. At the time, thwarting communism was in the United States' best interests. Reagan could not have possibly known the lasting effects of supporting Iraq or Afghanistan in the early Eighties. Using your rationale, you would have to say that FDR's administration is completely responsible for the Cold War, since FDR waited two years before opening up the second front on Germany during WW2.

No administration is responsible for what is happening in the middle east today. The area has been prone to turmoil for thousands of years.

Most of today's problems stem from botch colonialism after World War I and the chess game of the Cold War.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Um...he did. He actually said in '95 he thought he went too far.

it was the wrong time, and the wrong way.

Should have been closer to 97-98.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It cut people's spending, and kept everything where it should be.

Inflation is good because it keeps everything in check.

Just like a national debt isn't always bad... in fact, during certain times. It's a great thing. And during certain times it's a bad thing. There are times where it have catastrophic consequences for there to be no national debt. The surplus would actually do harm!


Inflation is considered to be a dirty word... but it isn't always bad. All Carter did was keep the dollar strong in the long term.

We could have waited a while, and taken a depression. Would that have been better? It had the potential to rival the great depression. Surely your not suggesting that's a better alternative to a few years of cutting back on consumer spending.


It all goes back to economic cycles. ups and downs are normal. Growth for too long is just as bad as no growth. The great thing about the US economy is that it bounces back. It's strong enough that when something happens, it's not the end of our economy. During no point since the great depression were times so bad that civil war broke out.

Carter did nothing wrong. He actually made the right move. What's unique is that he saw into the future and reacted.

ok i am sorry but this is just so wrong... you are right, inflation is better then deflation, and is an inevitable part of any economy... however nominal inflation is between 2 and 3 percent, not 8-10 percent... what carter had going was hyper inflation... if carter had been in office another term, i would probably have to take a wheelbarrel of money to the store to get some bread... and even then i would probably get mugged on the way... only they would take the wheelbarrel instead of the cash

you can call that forward looking, but me and most other people who actually understand economics will simply call that mismanagement

[BDiddy]

IMO, I don't think any administration can make an impact on the economy that can even compare to the impacts made by natural market swings. For example, I hear lots of people crediting Clinton with the successful economy of the late 1990's. IMO, this is complete bogus. Sure, his policies might have been fiscally responsible, but he had the assistance of two key allies:

1) TIMING - When Clinton took office, the nation was already beginning to crawl out of Recession, and by 1995 it was a distant memory. Clinton entered the White House at the bottom of a naturally occuring cycle.

2) THE INTERNET - Not only did the internet enable businesses to do business better and faster, but it also created a tax generating machine. People flooded the stock markets like never before with online trading. Barriers to entry and Transaction costs were removed (both are key fundamentals to a true free market). Sure, Clinton put a dent in the debt and erased the defecit for some time, but his tax revenue was growing in leaps and bounds.

IMO, Clinton was less responsible for the economic prosperity in the 1990's than he is given credit for. I choose to give the credit to E*Trade.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
it was the wrong time, and the wrong way.

Should have been closer to 97-98.

I'm not understanding your post. Could you explain more?

[BlackGriffen]

Bush joins a long line of Republican presidents with exemplary records. Men like Warren G. Harding, and Ulysses S. Grant.

I long for the simple days, when the biggest concern of the nation was the Presidential pole smoking habits of a certain intern.

I even find Bush Sr. to be preferable to this Bush. Considering how low my opinion of Bush Sr. was, that's saying alot.

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats have had their fair share of mediocre to bad presidents right down the line. What I am saying is that Bush is right down there with the mediocre to bad Republicans.

I look forward to voting against him in the next election. That is, assuming the Democrats don't look too hard for someone even more odious.

BlackGriffen

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

I was reacting to was this idea that Carter's Administration presided over some kind of peaceful interregnum that has no links to the problems we are dealing with today. That's rubbish. The sequence of events leads directly back to events on Carter's watch.

So, are you saying Carter is responsible for 9/11 because he didn't put up enough of a fight when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
So, are you saying Carter is responsible for 9/11 because he didn't put up enough of a fight when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?

No, I'm not doing that. I'm just noting the sequence of events and pointing out that Carter's Administration was involved in that sequence. That isn't the same thing as trying to pin blame for events that took place decades afterwards.

You can play the "what if" game forever. I think that the Carter Administration was mostly a disaster. But who knows what would have happened if Ford had beaten him in 1976. Would the world be a better place? Worse? The same? I have no idea.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
I'm not understanding your post. Could you explain more?

To summarize (without numbers because I'm lazy right now ) he did it at the wrong time. To early in the boom. What was needed was a steady increase so that people didn't have so much cash in their pockets.

When people have to much money... they tend to do stupid things, like invest in companies with no business plan. You end up with a hyperinflated market, and a recession at the end. It's a proven trend.

What did the "roaring twenties", a time of prosperity, lead to... Crash.

Taxes are more than just "government income" as many see them. They are also a way to control the economy and keep the dollar stable, as we all like it. When the government taxes, it removes spending power. This slows growth, and prevents inflation. Then during recession, it can be lowered, to increase spending and investment (the lader for a perfect world).

By taxing when the economy does well, in a sense is a "trust fund", putting money away for a bad day.

Clinton's mistake, was not trusting his advisors, and doing it to early, and not enough when it was needed. The wrong people were taxed before it was necessary.

As a result, people had this money buring a hole in their pockets. They came up with stupid dot com's... people invested in them, looking to make more money.

And ended up losing it.


Taxes if used correctly, can do great things for people. If he taxed perfectly (nearly impossible thanks to the beurocracy involved), there would have been very large funds for things such as the war on terror, fighting poverty, even unemployment compensation for those without a job right now.

All that beside the fact that there would be less of a recession.


Taxes are hard to do because of politics, and needing to see into the future. But it didn't take a genious to know that most of these new companies were going to crap out sooner or later. The market was a bloated mess. A complete failure of the market system. In a sense, a complete fraud and scam, athough not quite intentional.

TO be fair, he wasn't able to tell the future, but to be fair, Greenspan was very accurate. If he gave it more priority... it would have been much better for the United States both rich and especially the poor and working class.


Another limitation he faced was the sex-scandal sidetracked, and ran with this entire mess.... it occupied his, and his adminstrations resources, keeping them distracted during a key time. If he didn't have such an overactive sex-drive, the economy could have been much better. Guess you can say that hummer cost the American people quite a bit of cash.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, I'm not doing that. I'm just noting the sequence of events and pointing out that Carter's Administration was involved in that sequence. That isn't the same thing as trying to pin blame for events that took place decades afterwards.

You can play the "what if" game forever. I think that the Carter Administration was mostly a disaster. But who knows what would have happened if Ford had beaten him in 1976. Would the world be a better place? Worse? The same? I have no idea.

It's impossible to say for sure.

What's interesting is that Carter knew the region was going to be an issue 20+ years ago. Every president prior, and after ignored it. Clinton gave it a little time... but didn't make it to high of a priority.

Bush only cared after it was too late (9/11).

If Carter made the best moves is hard to say as SimeyTheLimey suggested. What is clear to say is that he was the only one who saw it coming, or had his eyes open to see it.

Carter clearly knew it would effect the US at some point in the future. Even people who hate him admit Carter knew the region's instability posed a threat to the US. He was well aware of what it could mean to the US, and it's allies.

Everyone else said he was nuts. It would be impossible for "uneducated arabs to harm the mighty USA"....

Carter knew otherwise.

If the others who followed him, made the effort to smooth things over, it's safe to say we could have avoided a majority of the problems we have had... and face ahead.

All the war on terror has done so far is make a region, and a large group of people more pissed off, and willing to attack the US than they were on 9/11.

Need to look no further than Israel to see what the mess did. As Isreal increased the preasure on the PLO, the attacks got worse, and more frequent.

As Isreal is changing it's tune, the attacks have at least showed signs of easing off. An improvement, and step towards the goal, which is still down the long road.


That's not to say going after the enemy is a bad thing. But one must question the methods after clear indications of failure. We killed some of the enemy. But helped the enemy recruit 10X what they lost.

Carter's *diplomacy* was years ahead of it's time. His attempts to ease tensions were unpresidented.

I'm an advocate of attempting some true diplomacy... since the current WOT is clearly not effective. We have doubled the threat. And are simply waiting and prepairing for another attack. There are more people pissed off at us now, then ever before.

If your strategy is a proven failure --> change it. Or you are a failure.

A true leader knows his mistakes and corrects them.

Note Bush is just a figure head. There are many more involved in the strategy than just him. He is not the sole blame. Everyone from US diplomats to the UN, to the state department, to the pentagon are involved.

[Spliffdaddy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by macvillage.net:
To summarize (without numbers because I'm lazy right now ) he did it at the wrong time. To early in the boom. What was needed was a steady increase so that people didn't have so much cash in their pockets.

? too much cash? that's been a problem, like, um, never.


When people have to much money... they tend to do stupid things, like invest in companies with no business plan. You end up with a hyperinflated market, and a recession at the end. It's a proven trend.

That money didn't just vaporize. It went somewhere and continued to be invested in something. Investment involves risk. But they don't actually burn the money that you lose - somebody else gets it.

What did the "roaring twenties", a time of prosperity, lead to... Crash.

It wouldn't have been called the 'roaring 20's' if the prosperity had continued for 8 decades, then would it

Taxes are more than just "government income" as many see them. They are also a way to control the economy and keep the dollar stable, as we all like it. When the government taxes, it removes spending power. This slows growth, and prevents inflation. Then during recession, it can be lowered, to increase spending and investment (the lader for a perfect world).

Those tax dollars are used to buy goods and services. This creates jobs and income and, in a roundabout way, more tax revenue for the government. Again, money doesn't just disappear. It isn't a zero-sum game.

By taxing when the economy does well, in a sense is a "trust fund", putting money away for a bad day.

If they didn't spend it on other stuff first...

Clinton's mistake, was not trusting his advisors, and doing it to early, and not enough when it was needed. The wrong people were taxed before it was necessary.

The wrong people? Hey, I'm the wrong people.

As a result, people had this money buring a hole in their pockets. They came up with stupid dot com's... people invested in them, looking to make more money.

And ended up losing it.

And the other half MADE that 'lost' money, don't forget.

Investment involves risk. Stupid people and their money are soon parted.

Taxes if used correctly, can do great things for people. If he taxed perfectly (nearly impossible thanks to the beurocracy involved), there would have been very large funds for things such as the war on terror, fighting poverty, even unemployment compensation for those without a job right now.

Well, one of those would be the federal government's Constitutional obligation. While the other two aren't. Besides, you aren't going to end poverty even if you confiscate all the wealth thru taxation. The bottom 15% of American wage-earners will forever be at or below the poverty line.

All that beside the fact that there would be less of a recession.

um. tell me what else you see, Ms Cleo.


Taxes are hard to do because of politics, and needing to see into the future. But it didn't take a genious to know that most of these new companies were going to crap out sooner or later. The market was a bloated mess. A complete failure of the market system. In a sense, a complete fraud and scam, athough not quite intentional.

Too bad it wasn't intentional. Are you sure it wasn't a right-wing conspiracy? Maybe Lerkfish could show us the connection we're not seeing. It's a given fact that Ashcroft dictates the fate of nations, their people, and the global financial markets.

TO be fair, he wasn't able to tell the future, but to be fair, Greenspan was very accurate. If he gave it more priority... it would have been much better for the United States both rich and especially the poor and working class.

Why didn't YOU tell him when the recession was going to end? ain't like you wasn't aware of it or anything..Ms Cleo


Another limitation he faced was the sex-scandal sidetracked, and ran with this entire mess.... it occupied his, and his adminstrations resources, keeping them distracted during a key time. If he didn't have such an overactive sex-drive, the economy could have been much better. Guess you can say that hummer cost the American people quite a bit of cash.

Screw the cash (no pun intended), he made men look like womanizing pantywaist dumbasses.

[davesimondotcom]

How come I knew that the first post of this thread was going to say? Oh, that's right, it's a RE-thread...

Funny how they all evolve in different ways though.

P.S. I still believe that trading Sammy Sosa to the White Sox was a good move. Sammy was not a good hitter, he struck out way more than the average joe. And, for someone questioning the President's intelligence, perhaps you could do enough research to know that there is no team called the White Cubs.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Taxes are more than just "government income" as many see them. They are also a way to control the economy and keep the dollar stable, as we all like it. When the government taxes, it removes spending power. This slows growth, and prevents inflation. Then during recession, it can be lowered, to increase spending and investment (the lader for a perfect world).

That's a load of crap. The government is a participant in the market, not a regulator. True, it may seem like higher taxes would reduce spending power. However, the government pumps that money right back into the economy through purchasing goods/services and creating jobs. To truly regulate the economy and curb spending power, you have to take money out of the economy and you have to encourage saving rather than spengin/investing. The Federal Reserve Board does both by:

A) Selling treasuries... this takes money out of the economy in return for putting it back with interest in the future.

B) Raising the Fed Funds rate, with in turn will raise yields on money market/savings accounts, promoting savings. Furthermore, this will raise the real interest rate on Loans, reducing the incentive for companies to take out loans for investment in capital.

Lowering taxes during a recession might help increase consumer spending, but it is sort of a round-robin scenario... Now that we are back in defecit mode, to come up with the extra money the government will have to issue out more government backed notes, effectively taking the money back out of the economy. On a more personal note, my paycheck just was increased to reflect the new tax cut. My bimonthly check went up $3. I doubt that is going to increase my 'consumer spending'!!!

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
That's a load of crap. The government is a participant in the market, not a regulator. True, it may seem like higher taxes would reduce spending power. However, the government pumps that money right back into the economy through purchasing goods/services and creating jobs. To truly regulate the economy and curb spending power, you have to take money out of the economy and you have to encourage saving rather than spengin/investing. The Federal Reserve Board does both by:

A) Selling treasuries... this takes money out of the economy in return for putting it back with interest in the future.

B) Raising the Fed Funds rate, with in turn will raise yields on money market/savings accounts, promoting savings. Furthermore, this will raise the real interest rate on Loans, reducing the incentive for companies to take out loans for investment in capital.

Lowering taxes during a recession might help increase consumer spending, but it is sort of a round-robin scenario... Now that we are back in defecit mode, to come up with the extra money the government will have to issue out more government backed notes, effectively taking the money back out of the economy. On a more personal note, my paycheck just was increased to reflect the new tax cut. My bimonthly check went up $3. I doubt that is going to increase my 'consumer spending'!!!

yes i agree that macvillage.net is not making any sense in his monetary policy ideas

[benb]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
P.S. I still believe that trading Sammy Sosa to the White Sox was a good move. Sammy was not a good hitter, he struck out way more than the average joe. And, for someone questioning the President's intelligence, perhaps you could do enough research to know that there is no team called the White Cubs.

And he cheats!

[Joshua]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Even people who hate him admit Carter knew the region's instability posed a threat to the US. He was well aware of what it could mean to the US, and it's allies.

Everyone else said he was nuts. It would be impossible for "uneducated arabs to harm the mighty USA"....

Carter knew otherwise.

If the others who followed him, made the effort to smooth things over, it's safe to say we could have avoided a majority of the problems we have had... and face ahead.

Sheesh, where are you getting this from?

You may want to find out why the Soviet's "invaded" Afghanistan in the first place, and who Carter chose to support in response.

[macvillage.net]

That money didn't just vaporize. It went somewhere and continued to be invested in something. Investment involves risk. But they don't actually burn the money that you lose - somebody else gets it.

Actually... it never existed. There was more money in the stock market, than really existed in the economy. Hence hyperinflation. For AOL was never worth what it was when it became AOLTW. Enron was never worth anything near what it was trading for.

Stock prices are only as good as what you sell it for. If you don't have the cash in a bank, or in your hand... IT DOESN'T EXIST.

That is a fundimental mistake people make. Stock prices don't represent true value. Many stocks in the past have went 10X+ more than what the company was worth (Palm was a good example). Or sell way under what they are worth.

Until everyone with an investment has the cash in their hands. Its just a number. It means nothing to the economy. Just the market... two distinct entities.

You may want to find out why the Soviet's "invaded" Afghanistan in the first place, and who Carter chose to support in response.

And you many want to see why they are upset with us. It may have something to do with the fact that we attacked them afterwards to ensure they couldn't do any harm (or so we thought), and left their countries in shambles and poverty much worse than when we came in.

That is when the present day hatred towards the US began. That was during the Reagan administration. When he was focusing on destabalizing South America (OUR NEXT BIG ENEMY IN TERMS OF TERRORISM... wait 10 years and see what happens... I can virtually guarantee you we will see some acts of terrorism from South American countries... and people will sadly die because nobody wants to see the issue). History repeats itself. The biggest scandal in the US government was the idea that 9/11 was "unpresidented", and "out of nowhere". It was expected, warned about by experts, and very obvious that it was coming. Perhaps the day wasn't pinpointed. But no American could honestly have said they didn't have any clue that could happen. Honestly say that. There was evidence everywhere, including Bin Ladens statement to AL Jazera regarding an attack on a scale of no other.... which made the Yahoo homepage for a day or two, perhaps 3 weeks prior to 9/11.

That's a load of crap. The government is a participant in the market, not a regulator. True, it may seem like higher taxes would reduce spending power. However, the government pumps that money right back into the economy through purchasing goods/services and creating jobs. To truly regulate the economy and curb spending power, you have to take money out of the economy and you have to encourage saving rather than spengin/investing. The Federal Reserve Board does both by:

A) Selling treasuries... this takes money out of the economy in return for putting it back with interest in the future.

B) Raising the Fed Funds rate, with in turn will raise yields on money market/savings accounts, promoting savings. Furthermore, this will raise the real interest rate on Loans, reducing the incentive for companies to take out loans for investment in capital.

Lowering taxes during a recession might help increase consumer spending, but it is sort of a round-robin scenario... Now that we are back in defecit mode, to come up with the extra money the government will have to issue out more government backed notes, effectively taking the money back out of the economy. On a more personal note, my paycheck just was increased to reflect the new tax cut. My bimonthly check went up $3. I doubt that is going to increase my 'consumer spending'!!!

The government constantly pulls money out of general circulation, and into other purposes that don't stimulate the economy in return. Paying off the National Debt, or money towards aids in africa are perfect examples of that. The US does this often.

And that $3 doesn't mean much to *you* per say. But it does to someone...

The very poor, this may be a 2nd meal in the day. McDonalds will detect an increase in customer traffic. So will other stores like Walmart, who sells goods towards this market.

And for the very rich, that $3 multiplies into something worth investing. Perhaps in a little known garage company that will finally topple Microsoft by bringing linux to the masses Or perhaps putting money into software that Apple will include in the iPhone? There are tons of ways that will help.

And you will spend the $3. In some way/shape/form. And if every American paycheck gets +3. Multiply that by the census total... and see what you have. That much more floating around.

And higher taxes does regulate spending. IT simply forces you to spend it through the government on designated items. The Federal government did not invest in any of those silly IPO's. They put it in places where it would in theory benefit more people. Every tax dollar collected, is one less dollar that got thrown into the blackhole of dot com madness. Clean and simple.

Recession also happens to particular industries. Just because the dot coms were growing... doesn't mean other industries were as well. Pumping money into healthcare, as the government did during this era... was good, and didn't harm a thing. It was actually a great move that will help in the future, though healthcare will still fall short of what will be needed in the next 20 years.


The governement is a participant. But also the main regulator. Taxes divert funds from peoples pockets towards where they should be (for example healthcare). Every dollar that was diverted through taxes, was not lost in the stockmarket over hyperinflated IPO's... which most experts warned in the mid 90's were going to bust.

Anyone who lost cash to these dot coms was stupid plain and simple. Nobody could have reasonably believed that they were doing the right thing. If you seriously lost money... you were a fool. Plain and simple. NO exceptions. you KNEW what was going to happen. Even the Al Greenspan warned of what was to come. Every TV discussion on thet topic pointed in the same direction... BUST.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The government constantly pulls money out of general circulation, and into other purposes that don't stimulate the economy in return. Paying off the National Debt, or money towards aids in africa are perfect examples of that. The US does this often.

And that $3 doesn't mean much to *you* per say. But it does to someone...

The very poor, this may be a 2nd meal in the day. McDonalds will detect an increase in customer traffic. So will other stores like Walmart, who sells goods towards this market.

And for the very rich, that $3 multiplies into something worth investing. Perhaps in a little known garage company that will finally topple Microsoft by bringing linux to the masses Or perhaps putting money into software that Apple will include in the iPhone? There are tons of ways that will help.

And you will spend the $3. In some way/shape/form. And if every American paycheck gets +3. Multiply that by the census total... and see what you have. That much more floating around.

And higher taxes does regulate spending. IT simply forces you to spend it through the government on designated items. The Federal government did not invest in any of those silly IPO's. They put it in places where it would in theory benefit more people. Every tax dollar collected, is one less dollar that got thrown into the blackhole of dot com madness. Clean and simple.

Recession also happens to particular industries. Just because the dot coms were growing... doesn't mean other industries were as well. Pumping money into healthcare, as the government did during this era... was good, and didn't harm a thing. It was actually a great move that will help in the future, though healthcare will still fall short of what will be needed in the next 20 years.


The governement is a participant. But also the main regulator. Taxes divert funds from peoples pockets towards where they should be (for example healthcare). Every dollar that was diverted through taxes, was not lost in the stockmarket over hyperinflated IPO's... which most experts warned in the mid 90's were going to bust.

Anyone who lost cash to these dot coms was stupid plain and simple. Nobody could have reasonably believed that they were doing the right thing. If you seriously lost money... you were a fool. Plain and simple. NO exceptions. you KNEW what was going to happen. Even the Al Greenspan warned of what was to come. Every TV discussion on thet topic pointed in the same direction... BUST.

i agree with some of the things that you say here however there is one thing i can not agree with, and that is your idea that the government should regulate the economy. People have the right to choose what they do with their money, and if that means pumping yahoo up to 500 dollars a share then, that is their fundimental right. In fact you even contridict yourself. You say that tax cuts could put Microsoft out of business by increasing funding in a garabe company. However, you need to do some research and determine who Mircosoft's primary buyer is. So when the U.S. withholds that extra percentage point, a good portion of that will be going to support the Microsoft Empire.

The government should not regulate... that is not its function. And while there is a line between laisez-faire economics and market regulation, that like is most definently crossed when the government becomes both a member of the market, and the regulator. Even the president can't tell Greenspan what fiscal policy should be within the reserves and that is for good reason.

Your ideas I am sure sound good in your head, but they are fundementaly flawed in economic terms. If you want to talk like you know what is going on go to school and get a degree in economics... then we will talk. But for now, continue to contridict yourself in your posts.

[BDiddy]

Macvillage.net:


You are so wrong on so many levels... please, take an economics class or two. I have a bachelor's degree in economics, so I feel qualified to say that you are DEAD WRONG. Hmm... where to start:

A) Paying off the national debt? Do you know what the national debt is? It is money owed to people and businesses. If the US government attempts to pay down the debt, they are paying money to the debtholders. This puts the tax money back into circulation. The government NEVER pulls money out of circulation. Only the FRB (Federal Reserve Board). Everything is spent on something. Social Security taxes turn into Social Security payments to the elderly. If the government really took money out of circ, they would have a savings account somewhere just holding money for no real purpose. The only way the govt takes money out is through the Federal Reserve Board... not through taxation.

B) It is true that if you add up all the money everyone and every business has, it would FAR FAR exceed that amount of actual paper money. This is nothing new. This is what caused the Great Depression to accelerate so quickly. As people became nervous, everyone ran to the bank to take their cash out, and eventually, the banks ran out of money. The reason people say a Great Depression is unlikely to occur again is because of stopgaps placed on our banks today. If x% of money is withdrawn, the banking industry is frozen. However, in the stock market, you do not pay for present value of a company. You pay for future earnings.... hence, stock investors like to us the Price/Earnings ratio which tells them how much they pay for one year's earnings (usually prjected).

C) The recession we are experiencing now is supply driven.... there is a surplus of good and services. Putting money back into the consumer's hand is not going to fix the surplus of goods and services. The economy will not really get going again until producers of good/services lower their inventory to a level that will balance out with the current demand.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
You are so wrong on so many levels... please, take an economics class or two. I have a bachelor's degree in economics, so I feel qualified to say that you are DEAD WRONG. Hmm... where to start

i am also a econ major a semester away from going to get my doctorate at U of Chicago... so you actually have 2 people who know what is going on telling you that you are wrong... accept it... learn something

[FauxCaster]

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any
country in the history of the world.

Dude, you're so clueless. That was Bill Clinton. He presided over the biggest bubble in history, GW only inherited his mess.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
i am also a econ major a semester away from going to get my doctorate at U of Chicago... so you actually have 2 people who know what is going on telling you that you are wrong... accept it... learn something

Wait, He'll dismiss you as a Chicago Boy.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Wait, He'll dismiss you as a Chicago Boy.

yea most likely... that has been known to happen

[Ozmodiar]

Every time I see this list posted on a board I become insane with anger. I hate Democrats and Republicans equally, but jesum croat the bullshit that is itemized on that list is just outrageous.


Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.

That's just ridiculous. It's his job to sign bills into law; it's not like he has the Constitution folded up neatly in his desk and every time he wants to change something in the United States he takes out a pen and scratches something out.

Failed to fulfill pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months there are no leads and zero suspects.

I'm sorry, where in Article 2 does it say the President has to be the world's detective? Is he supposed to drop everything he's doing (like, say, running the world) and hop on a flight to Afghanistan and personally look in the caves for OBL? And when he's finished with that, he's supposed to come back to the States and go on another manhunt for the anthrax guy. Right?

Cabinet members are the richest of any administration in US history (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice had a Chevron oil tanker named after her).

That's just common sense. When you become President of the United States, I'll wait patiently while you appoint people to cabinet positions that will be against your agenda. Human nature dictates that the President will pack the high offices with his friends.

With a policy of 'dis-engagement,' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

And then there are items like this. The entire world shits its pants when the U.S. intervenes in something, but when we DON'T make the whole planet perfect we take the blame.

I have a beef with almost everything listed, but those are the ones that get me riled up the most. A little note to the citizens of the United States: if you don't like the way Bush is doing things...USE YOUR VOTE. Get him out of there!

Iowans, it's up to you to get the ball rolling on January 19th.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
I have a beef with almost everything listed, but those are the ones that get me riled up the most. A little note to the citizens of the United States: if you don't like the way Bush is doing things...USE YOUR VOTE. Get him out of there!

Iowans, it's up to you to get the ball rolling on January 19th.

Well said.