TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Good ol' President Dubya
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Good ol' President Dubya

Okay fellow TA's, here's a question for you. I'd like to know if anybody caould construct a comprehensive list of the things George W. Bush has done for the country since his election. Obviously, not all the really tiny details, but as much as you can find, list it for me! This is NOT a challenge, it is merely a request. PLEASE do not spend your time flaming me if you're a Republican. I'm NOT insulting Bush, just asking WHAT he's done for the USA.

environmental: he has proposed a $1.2 billion in research funding so America could lead the world in developing clean hydrogen powered automobiles.

foriegn affairs: Rid Afghanistan of the Taliban (which is a good thing for the people of afghan no matter how you look at it)

economy: a big proponent of free trade and currently trying to pass FTAA (free trade area of the americas)

Here are his economic policies I posted before:

quote:

The Bush Administration's economic policy continues to be a mixed bag. Some policies work, others don't. Story Continues Below Ad The biggest policy win, of course, is the tax cut of 2001, which continues to be a positive for the U.S. economy. It would have been better if the tax-rate reductions came into effect earlier, and if tax changes had been made to favor more business investment. Movement in these areas seems unlikely as long as the Democrats control the U.S. Senate. That might change come the November elections. The worst policy moves so far have been in international trade (notably in steel, agriculture, and timber) and fiscal discipline (in education and health). The Administration seems also to be allowing the inquiries on corporate fraud to turn into witch hunts that will harm enterprise for a long time. Of course, the worst example is the reckless legal assault on the financial sector by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. But I confess to amusement over Spitzer's attacks on the quality of stock-picking, such as Salomon Smith Barney's Jack Grubman maintaining for too long, at least publicly, a positive outlook on WorldCom Inc. Economists tend to think that the value of these kinds of stock recommendations--whether, for example, to go long or short on WorldCom when its stock price reached $3 or $1--is about zero. Another concern is monetary policy. Throughout the Volcker-Greenspan era, the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates when inflation remained low and when the economy was weak, gauged especially by slow employment growth. This policy led to the extremely low federal funds rate--1.75%--that prevails today, leaving little room for stimulus through further rate cuts. At some point, monetary policy may have to shift from a concern with inflation to the avoidance of the kind of deflation that prevails in Japan. In particular, if short-term rates get close to zero and the general price level starts to fall, then the monetary stance cannot be judged as stimulative. Rather, low interest rates would just be a symptom of expected deflation, and the way to stimulate the economy would be to create positive inflation by printing money at a faster rate. In this environment, successful stimulus shows up as higher interest rates along with higher inflation. Japan is already in this situation, but the U.S. is not yet there. One hopes the Fed is prepared to cope with deflation, should it arrive. I applaud the intervention into the strike-lockout of the West Coast ports, although earlier action would have been better for the economy. The International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU), with membership of just over 10,000 semi-skilled workers, has used its muscle in the past to boost annual wages to over $100,000. Their current priority is to stifle the introduction of productivity-enhancing technology, which would likely compromise the monopoly position of the union. Despite the egregious use of monopoly power to hamper international trade and stifle productivity, the Administration was wary of intervening, apparently fearful of the upcoming November elections and the political costs of moving against organized labor. My guess is that the Administration would do better to look at Ronald Reagan's actions in the early 1980s against a similarly intransigent union, the air-traffic controllers. It turned out to be widely popular and was probably Reagan's finest hour. Another problem with the Bush Administration's economic policy is that it isn't using antitrust laws properly. They aren't working for either labor or capital. With labor, they function to promote monopoly. If the U.S. had sensible antitrust laws, the actions of the ILWU would violate them. The original Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 forbade any action that was a "conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations." In fact, the Sherman Act was used extensively against labor unions in the 1890s. But later legislation (notably the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Wagner Act of 1935) effectively exempted labor unions from antitrust laws. It would be nice to see the Administration propose a new law to treat business and labor in a balanced way. After all, monopoly over labor in a sector can have adverse economic effects. So can overcapacity. When it comes to capital, the applications of the antitrust laws seem to prevent consolidation when it is most needed. In the telecom sector, the Justice Dept. (along with the European Union) thwarted the merger in 2000 of MCI and Sprint Corp. (FON ) Now, it is hard to find an industry with more overcapacity and where consolidation would make more economic sense. Similarly, the U.S. government has prevented mergers of airlines, such as United Air Lines Inc. and US Airways Inc., despite overcapacity. More recently, the government impeded a merger of two satellite-television companies--EchoStar Communications Corp. (DISH ) and DirecTV (GMH )--although such a merger would likely enhance competition in the broader market for television signals. If we cannot get a better system, we might be better off repealing all antitrust laws.

Also he has a higher approval rating than Clinton ever did ... dunno if that means anything though. I think he effectively handled the immediate post 9/11 situation very well and brought the entire country and the world together in its stance against terrorism. Patriotism has never been at a higher level. Although I may support the end result, I think the Iraq mess leaves much to be desired ... My hopes is that he's replaced this next election with someone who can mend fences.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy environmental: he has proposed a $1.2 billion in research funding so America could lead the world in developing clean hydrogen powered automobiles. foriegn affairs: Rid Afghanistan of the Taliban (which is a good thing for the people of afghan no matter how you look at it) economy: a big proponent of free trade and currently trying to pass FTAA (free trade area of the americas)

But Bush also pulled out of the Kyoto Accords, a huge anti-environmental move there.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 But Bush also pulled out of the Kyoto Accords, a huge anti-environmental move there.

you asked for the good stuff

but btw you cant blame the pull out directly on bush, it was congress who did not ratify it. it was bi-partisan thing so you had democrats voting agianst the treaty as well. australia didnt ratify it as well... in my opinion the kyoto accords werent that good to begin with.

FTAA being a good thing? gimme a break brother.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek FTAA being a good thing? gimme a break brother.

i belive free trade is good for america, and correct me if im wrong bush is the president of america. care to enlighten me as to why the FTAA is not a good thing?

and you are entirely right! It is good for America! and only America

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i belive free trade is good for america, and correct me if im wrong bush is the president of america. care to enlighten me as to why the FTAA is not a good thing?

America's = South and North America together, considered by majority of the countries in the world as one continent, while in the United States, the America's is divided in two, as South and North America, in some cases, they consider North America as the AMERICA'S. So about that FTAA (free trade ) is not all that true, the only countries that have free trade in all the America's with the USA are Chile, Mexico, and Canada, if there's another country that I have missed, then Im pleased to know.


Ok back to what Bush has done to the United States ( good things )

That Hydrogen plan he proposed as mentioned

THe Home National Security, though Im still in doubts if it was a good thing or a waste of money thing, cubans keep coming o miami with guns and stuff without been cought by the so famous national security.

mmmm after 3 years of presidency, I have to think for this ones..mmmm Ok I think that's about it, besides scaring people with all the terrorism alerts and going out to buy tapes and stuff well that's about it I guess.

I could name you some bad stuff's though such as getting out of the Kyoto treaty. ( By the way, the United States is the leading country when it comes to pollution and consuming world resources, so Australia getting out is not that of a problem, there's more land then people in that country/continent).

I was asking my self the same question seriously the other day, and I was thinking that for the elections Mr. Bush will use all the 9/11 excuse and war against Iraq and Afghanistan as well the national security, which will be about it<< remember that guys, he WILL use 9/11 and war for political re-election.

And oohh Izzy, really I didnt like how you referred to the United States and the president as president of the America's, America is composed of alot of other countries, not just USA, that shows how Bully the USA can be and step on every other country.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX And oohh Izzy, really I didnt like how you referred to the United States and the president as president of the America's, America is composed of alot of other countries, not just USA, that shows how Bully the USA can be and step on every other country.

sorry didnt intend for it to be taken that way... sometimes i say US, sometimes USA sometimes america (no 's') to me its all the same. ill use US from now on to make it clear. i realize the continent of america (south and north) is made up of many unique countries.


ahlamalek, yes of course FTAA is good for the US, is there anything wrong with a president supporting what is good for his country (you make it seem that way)? and would you explain to me why free trade is not good for other countries in the americaS?

-I think every country will benefit from Free Trade in the America's, the thing that maybe Ahlmalek is trying to say is that the USA will benefit twice as much, like, we sell them stuff expensier and we get from them the stuff cheaper, and that's why so many farmers all over central america are arguing and go on protest for heaving free trade on some way with the USA, cause they are actually gaining almost nothing, but, in the case of the most civilized countries such as Chile where industry is all over, then they actually benefit more from free trade.

And yeah Izzy all cool with that, thing is other countries which actually support the US as much in economic means are never taken for granted, so Im glad you understand what I mean.

The United States of America rules the Americas

>JM<

The UNITED STATES of America only consists of the UNITED STATES

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King The UNITED STATES of America only consists of the UNITED STATES

Whats your point?

quote:

Originally posted by JM The United States of America rules the Americas >JM<

quote:

Originally posted by GODLESSCOMMIE Whats your point?

Unfortunatly, you are blinded by your self-righteous patriotism

quote:

Originally posted by JM The United States of America rules the Americas >JM<

that is the funniest thing i've heard all week...yet another example of why we're so hated sadly

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King The UNITED STATES of America only consists of the UNITED STATES

]

gee thanks for being so politically correct...might as well send a petition to congress asking them to change USA to just US even tho "USA" has been used for the last...200 years?

Look...I didn't post this thread so we could all argue about that the USA should be called. Either fucking get on track or don't post, goddamnit....

quote:

Originally posted by TuanAnh213 ] gee thanks for being so politically correct...might as well send a petition to congress asking them to change USA to just US even tho "USA" has been used for the last...200 years?

I dont know if you understood what i was implying in that little brain of your, but i will rephrase it for those who are too stupid too understand. I know your country's name is USA (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA).... but im simply trying to point out that your nation is OF a greater part of a sector in this continent.... it doesnt comprise the whole thing!

Again, tuahananhahnahan whatever your name is......i feel like im talking to a child.,.....read the fucking thread

quote:

Originally posted by JM The United States of America rules the Americas >JM<

^^
people like that give the Americans a bad name.
Someone duct tape JM with with an american flag over his mouth

People people people ... first of all, a country ISN'T gonna sign an agreement or a treaty if it does not benefit them!!! Do you think the people of south america are so stupid that they would sign the FTAA if it were to RUIN their economies? Let's use some common sense here.

Second of all, someone please explain to me how free trade is bad??? In the four years of my economics major, not ONE book has said that taxes, tarrifs, or trade barriers have had ONE positive economic benefit. As a matter of fact, the failure of such policies are evident in the early 20th century. So can someone please explain to me the disadvantages of free trade??? And if you aren't going to back up your argument with sound economic theory then don't even bother responding.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider someone please explain to me how free trade is bad??? In the four years of my economics major, not ONE book has said that taxes, tarrifs, or trade barriers have had ONE positive economic benefit. As a matter of fact, the failure of such policies are evident in the early 20th century. So can someone please explain to me the disadvantages of free trade??? And if you aren't going to back up your argument with sound economic theory then don't even bother responding.

how about you do another four years in social sciences and come back to say the exact same thing. I'm pretty sure the books will criticize free trade big time. its all about perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek how about you do another four years in social sciences and come back to say the exact same thing. I'm pretty sure the books will criticize free trade big time. its all about perspective.

I don't see what social sciences has to do with economics ... especially since the topic at hand is ECONOMICS. Well if you disagree, then please explain to me how trade barriers are good??? I would especially like to see this since every economist I have talked to, and virtually every economic textbook has disagreed.

Edit: And please ... if you're going to quote from social science textbooks explaining how trade barriers are good please provide sources.

well you are certainly right in saying that economic books will say that free trade is good. its good for buisness and if you ricochet, for rich people

but for the social impacts and environmental impacts you don't see those same economic books discussing them, because frankly there's nothing good to be said about. And to install doubts in the future economists is out of the question. And i'm not even talking about the erosion of the national soveregnity for the gain of multinational companies who benifit to only a handful of people.

What I am trying to say here is that from your point of view, free trade is good. Also the same could been said for Izzy who said free trade is good for america. I agree with both of you.

But if you step outside and read in other spheres of knowledge about free trade and especially FTAA to see the other side of the medal, maybe you won't be so sure about what your books are teaching you

The best would be if one of your teachers openly criticize what the book says and not to rehash and throw the notions at his students like soooo many are doing now at uni. level. But that is unproductive at the factories we now call universities, because we don't want the students to *think*

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.