Bush economic policy approval soaring

[Troll]

Wish you'd define how. During the Bush administration, I've lost my job twice (currently unemployed) after having steady employment for the last 25 years. Many others in Silicon Valley have seen much worse in that they've bounced from one shutdown to another to another over the past few years. I hope it's getting better, but Bush certainly isn't helping things.

I was employed full time until Clinton. Kept working electronics jobs the whole time he was in and got laid off usually after 6 months to 1 year later. The last two years he was in office I was unemployed the entire time. Had one job with Bush, am unemployed now and going back to school. did either president cause my unemployment? Nope. Well, Clinton did have a little to do with my getting cut before retiring from the Marines, but I don't hold it against him, much.

It's just the cycle of things.

 

[Jocko]

Wish you'd define how. During the Bush administration, I've lost my job twice (currently unemployed) after having steady employment for the last 25 years. Many others in Silicon Valley have seen much worse in that they've bounced from one shutdown to another to another over the past few years. I hope it's getting better, but Bush certainly isn't helping things.

If you don't mind me saying so, it looks like you're in a bit of a loser industry. don't blame Bush, blame the counselor back in college who recommended you pursue whatever line you're in.

Sheesh, you'd probably blame him if you had the crabs, too.

 

[Troll]

Hey, want a job? Doesn't pay well but there's always a need for shipping and transporting any and all goods. Go build either portion of tractor and or trailers. I did that for the longest period of time since I've been out of the service. I even got called back after only 60 days of my last layoff. It didn't fit the school schedule which I already shelled out a few grand for so I didn't go back.

 

[a_unique_person]

All he has done is the classic Keynsian pump priming by the government. The very thing the Democrats are always accused of doing, and what is regularly touted as the reason for the ruination of America.

He has run up a massive, ( and it is massive), government deficit. That has injected god know how many billions of dollars into the economy and made government debt balloon. It's just a shame that most of the debt has gone into life destroying arms, and not more useful things, like hospitals or schools.

 

[Troll]

All he has done is the classic Keynsian pump priming by the government. The very thing the Democrats are always accused of doing, and what is regularly touted as the reason for the ruination of America.

He has run up a massive, ( and it is massive), government deficit. That has injected god know how many billions of dollars into the economy and made government debt balloon. It's just a shame that most of the debt has gone into life destroying arms, and not more useful things, like hospitals or schools.

Actually, we had the biggest spending increases in education lately, but that's really just part of an ongoing trend.

 

[Ion]

By understanding that Bush (or any other president for that matter) is not responsible for my personal financial success or failure.

If it makes you feel better though, by all means, keep blaming him for yours.

Bush spends more than $100 billion of taxpayer money in a wasteful war, instead of stimulating the consummer economy by injecting this $100 billion in it.

He thought that the $100 billion was well invested long-term into developing Iraq's oil exploitation for the U.S. benefit, but that's a blunder because he is under international scrutiny.

 

[shuize]

Ion,

My statement was in response to dsm's query about how I'm better off today.

But, if it makes you feel better, I guess you can blame Bush for your own financial failures, too.

 

[NullPointerException]

yeah, go team!

He is using a lot of reservists to fight the war thus creating a temporary boost in temp employment. Not to play devils advocate, but who says a cleansing of the nastier elements of human civilization wasn't entirely called for? Bush's foreign policy as far as wars are concerned is okay with me because he's finally dealing with problem countries that should have been spanked heartily years ago.

Also, as a skeptic or a religious person you have no grounds for saying that things that kill are a bad thing. Is Bush a swaggering cowboy? Heck yeah, he brought justice to a lawless land!

 

[Ion]

...
But, if it makes you feel better, I guess you can blame Bush for your own financial failures, too.

Well Bush does spend over $100 billion of taxpayer's money in a wasteful war, instead of stimulating the consumer economy by injecting this money in the economy, doesn't he?

Here we go:

recession by Bush, with only the money-losing military economy hiring now.

Pathetic Bush...

 

[NullPointerException]

Well Bush does spend over $100 billion of taxpayer's money in a wasteful war, instead of stimulating the consumer economy by injecting this money in the economy, doesn't he?

Here we go:

recession by Bush, with only the money-losing military economy hiring now.

Pathetic Bush...

How is the war wasteful? I think it represents an excellent zero sum transaction on the part of Americans considering who is allowed to take reconstruction contracts. So to rebut an earlier comment from a non-cogitating bleeding heart socialist... yes that money is going to build schools, just not in your country. Also, the part after Here we Go: makes no sense... would you like to clarify? Government agencies, to the best of my understanding, are not businesses in the traditional sense that they are expected to generate revenues. Maybe if you were talking about the INS which doesn't serve citizens all the time, but otherwise I would think asking government created and funded departments to generate revenues would be double dipping.

 

[Evolver]

Watch the gas prices.

The oil companies used to provide "reasons" for the large fluctuations of gas prices.
Late in the Clinton years, the prices just rose for no particular reason, up to nearly $2 a gallon. This drives the cost of business way up and lowers productivity. Gas prices lately have been coming way down. To as low as $1.30 a gallon around here.

It's my theory that the oil companies are playing with prices to try to get their puppet another term.

Merry arbitrarily-designated-supposed-birthday-for-an-imaginary-mythologial-creature to you all.

 

[Ion]

How is the war wasteful?
...

When missiles are fired in the wild, there go millions of wasted dollars.

When Bush's commission looks for WMDs in Iraq, there go millions of wasted dollars.

And so on.

A self-sufficient war was during the World War 2, because it was international with U.S. exporting weapons to allies.

Bush's war in Iraq is not international and it doesn't export weapons to allies to bring any revenue to it.

(The revenue that Bush expects from the war in Iraq is the long-term exploitation of the Iraq's oil, but Bush is under international scrutiny for this hidden agenda and the Iraqi guerilla is constantly sabotaging oil pipelines).

Bush was begging for money in U.N. in October, because his war is not self-sufficient but it drains taxes from the consumer economy.

Wasn't he?

He makes the same mistakes that U.S.S.R. was doing in the 80s, when U.S.S.R. was 'liberating' Afghanistan with a military complex but no consumer economy and U.S.S.R. eventually collapsed economically.

I can see Andropov (the leader of the U.S.S.R. in the 80s), Bush and Rumsfeld being equally imbeciles on this concept of having a military complex but little consumer economy to support it.

Under Bush, the U.S. consumer economy is dying while supporting a money losing war in Iraq.

I saw in the newspaper that Europe is not investing anymore in venture capitals in U.S., and European investors in the U.S. economy like Ericsson (Swe.), Alcatel (Fra.), SG Thomson Microelectronics (Fra.), Siemens (Ger.), and Nokia (Fin.), are divesting money from their U.S. operations, projects and jobs.

 

[Mike B.]

When missiles are fired in the wild, there go millions of wasted dollars.

When Bush's commission looks for WMDs in Iraq, there go millions of wasted dollars.

And so on.

A self-sufficient war was during the World War 2, because it was international with U.S. exporting weapons to allies.

Bush's war in Iraq is not international and it doesn't export weapons to allies to bring any revenue to it.

(The revenue that Bush expects from the war in Iraq is the long-term exploitation of the Iraq's oil, but Bush is under international scrutiny for this hidden agenda and the Iraqi guerilla is constantly sabotaging oil pipelines).

Bush was begging for money in U.N. in October, because his war is not self-sufficient but it drains taxes from the consumer economy.

Wasn't he?

He makes the same mistakes that U.S.S.R. was doing in the 80s, when U.S.S.R. was 'liberating' Afghanistan with a military complex but no consumer economy and U.S.S.R. eventually collapsed economically.

I can see Andropov (the leader of the U.S.S.R. in the 80s), Bush and Rumsfeld being equally imbeciles on this concept of having a military complex but little consumer economy to support it.

Under Bush, the U.S. consumer economy is dying while supporting a money losing war in Iraq.

I saw in the newspaper that Europe is not investing anymore in venture capitals in U.S., and European investors in the U.S. economy like Ericsson (Swe.), Alcatel (Fra.), SG Thomson Microelectronics (Fra.), Siemens (Ger.), and Nokia (Fin.), are divesting money from their U.S. operations, projects and jobs.

This is completely absurd. If there is ONE thing the US does well is consume. Do you really think there is a parallel between the USSR's consumer economy and the US?

Futhermore, the USSR always put something like 20+ percent of their GDP into their armies. At the height of Ronald Reagan it never went over 7% in this country. That percent has been going down for a long time.

 

[dsm]

You should get your facts straight. The economy began "tanking" in the 3rdQ 2000. Perhaps the economy knew Bush would get elected and decided to get a head start.

Hardly a significant difference in relation to what I said. Get your own facts straight.

 

[dsm]

By understanding that Bush (or any other president for that matter) is not responsible for my personal financial success or failure.

If it makes you feel better though, by all means, keep blaming him for yours.

Not entirely true. One example: Reagan fires the airport traffic controllers. More generally, a president may not be able to cause the problems, but he can certainly exascerbate them through poorly thought out policies.

 

[dsm]

Does it have anything to do with "offshore outsourcing"? Who was it that was pushing globalization of our economy so hard a few years back?

I'm not sure -- was his initials GHWB?

 

[dsm]

It's just the cycle of things.

Mostly agreed. Did any president directly cause my (or any other person's) particular situation. No. Did the president's policies potentially indirectly cause a domino chain of economic shifts that exascerbated problems in the economy (and, thus, affect me and others). Sure.

That also is the cycle of things.

 

[dsm]

Sheesh, you'd probably blame him if you had the crabs, too.

Hey, if he wants to take credit for fixing the economy, then he also has to take the blame when his fixes don't work out for everyone.

 

[NullPointerException]

Originally posted by Ion

When missiles are fired in the wild, there go millions of wasted dollars.


In wild life or the actual cost of the missle? The material components are a relatively minor element of a missles price and the actual loss for a misfire of your run of the mill missle is something like 1k. But yeah, millions of dollars, I'll support that.


When Bush's commission looks for WMDs in Iraq, there go millions of wasted dollars.


Is millions the word of the day for you? Do you have statistics on how much is actually being spent to find WMDs in Iraq?

And so on.

Getting ahead of yourself there buddy, we can't start addressing the first two points until you identify the extent and type of losses you alledge.

A self-sufficient war was during the World War 2, because it was international with U.S. exporting weapons to allies.

Yeah, we made a killing than forgave the debt and gave European nations millions to rebuild. The only reason that war benefited the United States economically is that European industry was destroyed and the US was going full gear.

Bush's war in Iraq is not international and it doesn't export weapons to allies to bring any revenue to it.

We are training the new Iraqi army, which count as allies for now. Also, due to the contracting restrictions he is just creating high paying jobs for Americans and their allies, which is utterly intolerable and almost socialist!

(The revenue that Bush expects from the war in Iraq is the long-term exploitation of the Iraq's oil, but Bush is under international scrutiny for this hidden agenda and the Iraqi guerilla is constantly sabotaging oil pipelines).

This is an unsupported statement, the government cannot gain revenue from Iraq in oil profits and such would be clear to anyone with half a brain. Rather the more rational conspiracy theory is that Bush is attempting to remove power from OPEC and a ring of terror supporting fanatical Islamic nations who have undue control over American policy. Of course this doesn't support your cause so it's overlooked in favor of a preferential conspiracy theory that looks good when written in the center of a big black sheet of paper but no basis reality.(please try and prove me wrong)

Bush was begging for money in U.N. in October, because his war is not self-sufficient but it drains taxes from the consumer economy.

What support do you have for this statement, maybe he was just trying to get other nations involved to give legitimacy to the soon to be reformed country of Iraq and repair relations damaged during the initial steps of the war.

He makes the same mistakes that U.S.S.R. was doing in the 80s, when U.S.S.R. was 'liberating' Afghanistan with a military complex but no consumer economy and U.S.S.R. eventually collapsed economically.

We are building an economic complex, including classes for Iraqi women on running small businesses. Please provide facts to support your assertion and prove me wrong.

I can see Andropov (the leader of the U.S.S.R. in the 80s), Bush and Rumsfeld being equally imbeciles on this concept of having a military complex but little consumer economy to support it.

That explains how focused they are on reducing crippling Iraqi debt, developing businesses, and restoring civil services... all along I thought they were just trying to um.. occupy them and not improve it. Once again, if you think I'm wrong provide facts for me to address.

Under Bush, the U.S. consumer economy is dying while supporting a money losing war in Iraq.

I require facts sir, not your opinion. My investments are doing well and all of my unemployed family members and kin are no longer unemployed.

I saw in the newspaper that Europe is not investing anymore in venture capitals in U.S., and European investors in the U.S. economy like Ericsson (Swe.), Alcatel (Fra.), SG Thomson Microelectronics (Fra.), Siemens (Ger.), and Nokia (Fin.), are divesting money from their U.S. operations, projects and jobs.

Which newspaper?

 

[Ion]

This is completely absurd. If there is ONE thing the US does well is consume. Do you really think there is a parallel between the USSR's consumer economy and the US?

Futhermore, the USSR always put something like 20+ percent of their GDP into their armies. At the height of Ronald Reagan it never went over 7% in this country. That percent has been going down for a long time.

This is completely absurd:

if there is one thing that the U.S. was doing well, it was consuming.

The consumption in U.S. is down now.

That's where Bush should have reduced taxes, in the consumer economy.

The fool didn't do it, and wastes taxes from the consumer economy in a money-losing military complex.

Ther are countless examples like Palm from the Silicon Valley, making palm gadgets running under their proprietary Palm OS.
Their gadgets sell less now than they were in 2000.
Their gadgets export less now than they were in 2000.
Palm lays off high-tech Engineers.
These laid-off Engineers will earn less and will pay less taxes.