BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS


Dow Jones: Down 32.5%
Unemployment: Up 36%
From $281 billion dollar surplus to $157 billion deficit
Jobs: Net loss of 2 million jobs

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

I have several opinions on Bush's reasons for calling war which, for personal reasons, I will not share; nevertheless, focusing on the Iraqs exclusively the way Bush is doing is getting more and more distasteful by the day.

forget even a veneer of fair-mindedness or objectivity, let's just bash George W. Bush incessantly because he's evil and the source of all our problems. Uh huh.

Come on! What the hell did you expect to happen after the dot-BOMB?? $$Trillions$$ of venture capital, many of the smartest and best-skilled workers, and piles of other resources (prime commercial real estate, state-of-the-art technology, foosball tables ) were poured into an industry that turned out being largely smoke & mirrors. All of these resources were squandered by an industry that, by and large, did not produce a good or service that anybody wanted. The aftermath of this fiasco had to hit us sometime, and the results would be just as painful regardless of who was in office. Couple this phenomenon with the "run up the stock price out of thin air" CEO shenanigans (which was in play long before W's inauguration), and you have yourself a lousy economy.

If your post was an attempt at propaganda, it's insulting to expect that any reasonable person would buy it. If you actually believe it yourself, then that's downright scary.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]

I think some people are bringing up economic issues because of the dismal state we are in right now. There is still a disconnect in my mind as to why a war with Iraq is so urgent at this time. The Administration has still failed to provide proof of the immediate danger.

I would feel better about it if we had a clear indication of why this war is a priority, particluarly because it will have serious implications for an already weakened U.S. economy.

What is distasteful here is that is certainly seems like a distraction on the part of the GOP.

Saddam Hussein is psychologically deranged, paranoid to the extreme, undoubtedly has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, can build/obtain nuclear weapons within 6 months, has consistently violated every single UN resolution since the end of the Gulf War, has already set limits on the UN weapons inspectors (they can only inspect military installations), has unilaterally attempted to take over Middle Eastern oil by military force, and has exterminated thousands of Kurds and Shiites without much, if any, cause.

In other words, we're not talking about Grenada here. The invasion of Iraq would be at enormous cost, both financially and in terms of human life. To charge that W and his administration are so callous that they are breezily willing to engage in a war so fraught with risk just to pick up a few votes in November is outrageous to me.

The laughable thing about all this is that losing a few seats, and therefore the majorities, in Congress will probably work out to Bush's advantage. First of all, it will only affect a few races, and the Democratic majorities in House and Senate would be fairly slim. There was a great NY Times political analysis (sorry, can't find the link) that argued that with the tough economic times ahead, it'll actually be better for both W and the Republican party to have Democratic majorities to point a finger at. The zillions of dollars stolen and squandered because of the dot-bomb and corporate greed fiascoes have thrown our economy into a funk from which it will take a long time to emerge. With a Republican White House, Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, and a flagging economy, the 2004 election would be a disaster for W.

PS: What's up with Scott Ritter changing his tune? Previously an adamant opponent to action against Iraq, I hear he's now saying that Saddam is an imminent threat. What's up with that??

From the latest Atlantic Monthly: "It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But although there has been mismanagement, and it has made matters worse, the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier." Former Clinton Administration official and 2001 Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz

For the full story, with, I'm sure, enough criticism of the Bush Administration to keep at least moderately reasonable people happy, go to:

The Roaring Nineties

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
From the latest Atlantic Monthly: "It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But although there has been mismanagement, and it has made matters worse, the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier." Former Clinton Administration official and 2001 Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz

For the full story, with, I'm sure, enough criticism of the Bush Administration to keep at least moderately reasonable people happy, go to:

The Roaring Nineties

---

Stiglitz knows what he's talking about. Yes, the slowdown began under Clinton, but the problem right now is that Bush has shown few signs of how to address the slowing economy. Like Herbert Hoover, W. keeps repeating the same tune when the times demand far more dramatic action.

As we all witnessed after Bush took the Keynesian step of pumping massive amounts of federal money INTO the economy because of 9/11, the economy experienced a noticeable boost. The late 2001 spending--which was crucial--helped to create new jobs, it gave citizens confidence and consumers a little push, and coupled with the low interest rates, the economy started to move forward.

Since then, however, we have witnessed a complete lack of urgency on anything except finding ways to further enrich the richest people in this country. Bush basically had to be dragged into signing onto stiffer penalties for corporate thieves. Now, company earnings are off their predictions, personal bankruptcies are up (in Utah they are at record levels), the NASDAQ reached its lowest level in five years, the Dow is approaching its lowest level in some time, housing starts have stalled, consumer confidence is low, and the number of long-term jobless levels are rising.

Defend Bush all you want, I would say this: if he at the VERY LEAST replaced the driftwood he has running Treasury (O'Neill, Lindsay) and his mendacious budget director (Daniels), and put in place people who knew something about 1) fiscal policy; 2) monetary policy; 3) trade policies and the global economy; and 4) how to at the very least work pragmatically to stabilize the current situation, I would not criticize Bush on this point.

Republicans cannot keep whining about Bill Clinton. Take responsibility for your actions or lack thereof. You are the PARTY OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Bush has an MBA, not an MFA. Under Clinton's, Rubin's and Summers' watch the economy reached record levels of EXPANSION. It has contracted since Bush took office. He needs to do something new--and soon!

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
In other words, we're not talking about Grenada here. The invasion of Iraq would be at enormous cost, both financially and in terms of human life. To charge that W and his administration are so callous that they are breezily willing to engage in a war so fraught with risk just to pick up a few votes in November is outrageous to me.

The laughable thing about all this is that losing a few seats, and therefore the majorities, in Congress will probably work out to Bush's advantage.

---

Everything you've said about Saddam applies to the deranged, paranoid leader of North Korea, who recently admitted to his nation's having abducted OFF THE STREETS OF JAPAN Japanese citizens. Are we also planning to invade North Korea sometime soon? That nation has repeated rolled into South Korea, launched missiles at Japan and South Korea, conducting spying missions into Japan, South Korea, China and other nations, and has threatened more than once to invade South Korea. It is starving its citizens to death and torturing dissidents, it may very likely possess nuclear and biological weapons, and it maintains a one party dictatorship whose control of its people is so complete that it would make Stalin jealous. Are we rolling into North Korea?

W. is not pushing *solely* for political reasons, but he may be pressing for a war now to help Republicans across the country. The Karl Rove diskette and similar information, and Andy Card's comments about "marketing" all point to this. Even before he took office, as more than one courageous news organization overseas has reported, the hawkish elements were planning a war against Iraq. There are many reasons for this. They lust to avenge H.W.'s failure to take out Saddam; they covet Iraq's considerable oil resources and thus to control the price and flow of oil in the region; they like Iraq's strategic position vis-à-vis the rest of the Middle East and Asia, which would allow them to form a sandwich around Evil Axis #2, Iran; they want to end Hussein's ability to fund Palestinian suicide bombers and possible other forms of terrorism (which would then leave the Saudis and other U.S. clients more vulnerable in terms of their support of Islamic terrorism); and they also want to demonstrate U.S. hegemony as a threat to other potential superpowers, especially China.

Moreover, W. would like to be able to say he wiped out Saddam. That would certainly put more than halfway to a win into 2004--unless the economy slumps into complete recession and the media and Democrats find the backbones to utter a few words about it.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Republicans cannot keep whining about Bill Clinton. Take responsibility for your actions or lack thereof. You are the PARTY OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Bush has an MBA, not an MFA. Under Clinton's, Rubin's and Summers' watch the economy reached record levels of EXPANSION. It has contracted since Bush took office. He needs to do something new--and soon!

---

But this is not a Republican whining about Bill Clinton. It is a Democrat saying that the economic downturn we're experiencing now began under Clinton's watch.

Moreover, supporting "personal responsibility" - which is a noble concept but has become trite, just like "family/traditional values" and "the people" - doesn't, oddly enough, involve taking personal responsibility for things for which you are not personally responsible. Should I take personal responsibility for that woman beating her kid half to death in the mall parking lot? After all, I support personal responsibility, right? I personally think it is irresponsible to suggest that O'Neill, etc. "don't know anything about" fiscal policy, etc. Are you honestly suggesting that if you asked any of these men to define, say, the gold standard, or supply and demand, that they wouldn't even be familiar with the concepts? Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them dumb.