|
Bush's Job (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidXtrance
My friend will be going to the marines soon, and well, and that was logical about the minorities part, but, my point was that they are the first in line to go on and attack , but w/e . Im not sure on this, nor want to contradict occrider, but I thought that unemployment was up to 7% close to 8%.
Another thing, the US economy is not far from a DEFICIT. With the Clinton administration, the US had a SURPLUS ! , meaning, gaining more then loosing, now is the opposite, the US is loosing more then its gains, meaning that if the economy goes as it is, we will soon face a DEFICIT , a shortage in money, and thats when the US will start selling bonds and so on. My point actually was that Bush's administration is really not doing much about, and that the samething happened with Bush the 1st, and its one of the reasons why he didnt get re-elected. |
My statistics came from the labor department and the bearuea of economic analysis, so I'm fairly certain they're correct. With regards to deficit spending, that is nothing new with the Bush administration. The US government has engaged in deficit spending since the early 30's. Clinton's administration even began with an unbalanced budget and only surplused towards the end of his term with the economic boom. Actually most economists sanction deficit spending. One of the reasons that the depression during the 30's was so bad was becuase the government refused to deviate from a balanced budget. The liquidity of money through the economy was almost nonexistent and essentially there was no capital spending, and the economy became stagnant. Economists now advocate a policy of deficit spending at periods when the busniess cycle is at a low, thereby pumping much needed money into the economy and accelerating productivity and growth. This deficit spending is then balanced out when the economy reaches the peak of the business cycle and the government begins to show a surplus. So as you can see, deficit spending is commonplace fiscal tool. Not quite the economic emergency and cause for concern that you make it out to be. Especially since the deficit spending is not all that extreme. If you think this is bad, look back to the 80's when the Reagan administration and the Cold War skyrocketed our national debt into the trillions.
With regards to Tito's statement, the recession of the 70's was not due to oil. It was not due to war either. It was as a result of a number of factors such as: bad fiscal and monetary policy, insane amounts of inflation, and the US economy reaching the low end of the business cycle. My point is, war and shortages really play a minimal part in affecting a country's economy. Yes there are cases where that proved to be the case (WW2) but those were because of different reasons altogether. A war is by no means a sound fiscal policy that even an idiot like Bush can recognize. If he doesn't realize this he has extremely learned economic advisors that would cry havoc and resign if this was his methods towards achieving economic recuperation. |
|
|
| juzfugen |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
The countries in africa aren't full of cash because they aren't producing their own weapons, but are instead buying them from foreing countries like the US. And if I'm not mistaken the 70s recesion was due to the lack of oil, and not the war. Also, there was a very strong anti-war movement. The fact that there are better ways of boosting economy, and that this way is highly risky as it is, shows only that Bush is not a good leader.
And what was that war 12 years ago then about? Oil. And this war will be basically finishing up of what's started in the first one. I really doubt US is doing it for anything else than it's own interests. No normal government would do it. So let's see what the US interests in the area could be. They're either self defense, political domination or economic gain. Now, it's not about self defense, because Iraq can in no way harm the US. It doesn't have missiles of long enough range, and has not attacked US forces after the gulf war outside it's own borders. It also has no signs of nuclear program. It only has chemical agents sold to it by the US. And even that is questionable because inspectors found none of it so far. So it's about one of the other two things. Since the US influence in the area is also pretty well secured, control of Iraq can be useful, but it's not crucial. Not important enough to start a war anyways. So we're left with economic interests, and guess what Iraq has in abundance, and it's not sand? |
The war 12 years ago was about liberating a country that was taken hostage by a madman. I was soo mad that it happened when it did, i was a junior in HS and knew i was going into the military and really wished i could have gone. Now being older I know war is not fun but somethings are neccesary.
LiquidX how old are you?
You are correct that the was a surplus during Clintons term, it had nothing to do with influx of tax revenue generated by the technology boom market. Or the fact that he neglected the military for 8 years, shutdown bases and cut back on our overall military strength.The only time Bubba acknowledged us was when he used us to divert attention form his own scandals. Once again i love how the anti war prostesters keep saying war for oil but never reply to fact that Iraq isnt abbiding by the terms of surrender it signed to end the Gulf War. Iraq hasnt attacked American forces they fire on our aircraft enforcing the no fly zones, whether or not the UN sees this as an aggresive action is moot , a missle launched at you is an attack on you |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by juzfugen
You are correct that the was a surplus during Clintons term, it had nothing to do with influx of tax revenue generated by the technology boom market. Or the fact that he neglected the military for 8 years, shutdown bases and cut back on our overall military strength. |
I disagree. How does a government make its money? Through the tax revenue generated by the private and public sectors. Can you describe how else a government would manage a budget surplus? I stand by my previous theory that governments have periods of surplus during the peak of the business cycle and periods of deficit during the downturns of the business cylcle ... at least if that government is of sound fiscal management. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by TuanAnh213
bush is a ing maniac...
two years...just two more ing years... |
you must be in denial, both you and I know its going to be 6 more years, wether we like it or not. |
|
|
| juzfugen |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I disagree. How does a government make its money? Through the tax revenue generated by the private and public sectors. Can you describe how else a government would manage a budget surplus? I stand by my previous theory that governments have periods of surplus during the peak of the business cycle and periods of deficit during the downturns of the business cylcle ... at least if that government is of sound fiscal management. |
sorry you misunderstood me i should have ended that commet like this
[/sarcasim]:crazy: |
|
|
| Az |
| the man shouldn't actually have been elected, Al Gore won by a clear half a million votes. If that was any other country in the world, there would have been some . Then again, its not Bush running the country, he can't read past 4th grade level, and takes "power naps" in the afternoon. Wonder if Dick Cheney and Don 'Rummy' Rumsfeld do?? ;) |
|
|
| LiquidXtrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by juzfugen
The war 12 years ago was about liberating a country that was taken hostage by a madman. I was soo mad that it happened when it did, i was a junior in HS and knew i was going into the military and really wished i could have gone. Now being older I know war is not fun but somethings are neccesary.
LiquidX how old are you?
You are correct that the was a surplus during Clintons term, it had nothing to do with influx of tax revenue generated by the technology boom market. Or the fact that he neglected the military for 8 years, shutdown bases and cut back on our overall military strength.The only time Bubba acknowledged us was when he used us to divert attention form his own scandals. Once again i love how the anti war prostesters keep saying war for oil but never reply to fact that Iraq isnt abbiding by the terms of surrender it signed to end the Gulf War. Iraq hasnt attacked American forces they fire on our aircraft enforcing the no fly zones, whether or not the UN sees this as an aggresive action is moot , a missle launched at you is an attack on you |
OK,there's a big reason why theres the anit-war protesters. First of all, if you didnt know, or probably didnt take it as a thought, it was Osama Bind Ladin and the Al Quaeda who attacked the United States. After months of searching for Osama, Bush and his administration came to a thought, without any proof that IRAQ was part of the AL QUAEDA or helped them with weapons and so on, thats when it was asked to go and check , via UN once again if they had nuclear weapons. Now, we are talking about a country thats had restrictions over a decade, and had complied with them, though the nuclear bombs and chemical bombs are yet unknown that they have it, in my opinion, IRAQ may or does have weapons. The fact is, Iraq is no bigger threat then Al Quaeda, nor North Korea who says that they are and will produce nuclear weapons. Bush shows lesser tolerance to Iraq, " ALL OF THE SUDDEN ", to take Saddam out of power and create a democratic Iraq. WHY does Bush have soo much interest on this ? without showing any concrete proof that they are a danger to the United States ? why is HE after Iraq , focusing all his attention, intelligence to Iraq instead of tracking Osama ? in a really bad state of economy in the UNited States ? ..
Well, to me and many others, the answer is obviously oil, using the security idea with it. Come on, its so common sense why Bush is not after N.Korea, a historically communist country, a danger to S. Korea , whom has also threatened the UNites States. N. Korea does not have OIL, nor does Al Quaeda, but Iraq does, and with an economy this bad for the UNited States, winning a war and getting to control the oil fields its a big BOOM for the USA.
Its not at all right to go die for OIL. The empty warheads are no danger, to me yet, since there hasent been any prroof YET that they werent listed on the 12,000 page summary thing. Now, BUSH used this move to make it look badder then a hurricane andrew. Come on ! ! !
And to AZ. Bush winning with electoral votes instead of popular vote, its not at all democracy. I know that any other country would have made a RE - VOTE .. but.. what do you think happened ? ? ? .. mmmmm :conf: |
|
|
| Az |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidXtrance
And to AZ. Bush winning with electoral votes instead of popular vote, its not at all democracy. I know that any other country would have made a RE - VOTE .. but.. what do you think happened ? ? ? .. mmmmm :conf: |
What do I think happened, Bush's cousin announced that he'd won on fox news, and the other news channels followed suit, not wanting to look foolish, announced it. Election by television, very classy ;) |
|
|
| juzfugen |
Liquid you have soo much to learn.ive said this once and ill say it again. WE ARE FOCUSED ON FINDING BIN LADEN!!!! your gonna try and tell me that last 6 or so months that I have been in Afghanastan i was doing what??? farming for glass?. I crawled through caves myslef looking for AQ members, my best friend was shot over there looking for AQ members so dont sit here and tell me we the United States Of America arent looking for these guys. You obviouly have no millitary or intel background so when i read your statements on the subject i feel like im trying to explain all this to my 7 year old nephew.
I bet if you were asked in 1999 or 2000 if you felt threatend by afghanastan you would convey the same sentiments you are here. With the free flowing news agencys and the internet you civilians think you know ALL thats going on, trust me you dont. (thank god)
Its an easy answer why we arent focused on NK right not, we are lobbying China (diplomacy) to get a grip on this guy. China wants a conflict over there just as much as you do. See these communist countries have been alienating themselves for the world more and more over the past 13-15 years and with the Soviet Union no more we have seen how China has turned and realized that if they want to survive they will need to learn to " play ball" with the rest of the planet or suffer from isolationism. With world economy getting smaller by the minute adn technology growing as fast as it can its only in their best intrest to drop their iron curtain and become world citizens.
I really wish i knew you in person there is so much i could share with you about whats actually happening on the other side of the planet, but these things i can not post on the internet :nervous:
but as i just posted in another topic im leaving for the middle east in about a week so dont know if ill be doing too much posting here before i ship back out. regardless of we disagree i will fight for your rights to argue with me :gsmile:
ps please put all your best live sets on the hub im trying to get all my music set before i leave, who knows it might be another year before i can actually download some new music |
|
|
| LiquidXtrance |
| Well, then the president and this nations leaders should point that out and show enough evidence and proof to have the majority of support. All you said sounded very reasonable, yet I have never heard this from any of our presidents mouth , except the fight against terrorism, but all I've heard him say has been to destroy the " AXIS OF EVIL " and to get Saddam out of power, thats something totally different to what the JOB you guys are doing in Afghanistan, or did, but that was when ? ? .. now what is you guys position ? ? just a question, because looking for the AQ is not part of the Bush's plan now., is it ? or is it too classified ? |
|
|
| juzfugen |
alot of it is classified, some i know and most i dont. i can tell you we have marines still in hot pursuit on AQ members, but it gets difficult when we see them flee over into pakistan (which i have with my own eyes) yet we are not allowed to pursue. i know for a fact we have covert operatives in places they "shouldnt" be in.
regardless of my post i am in no way a die hard bush supporter, i do think he takes alot more slack then he should. think about it he had in his mind a plna on what he thought he could do for 4 years to help the country. then the events of 9/11 happend and it threw everything out of whack.im sure he is trying the best he can but i sure wouldnt have wanted to be prez during 9/11.
If i was the president me personally, i would forcus more attention on our success we have had in aprehending AQ members and information.
World politics is a very tricky game, i cant tell you how many time while in the feild we had commanders from different nations argueing about who gets point on missions, basically the first team there that takes the prisoners claims the glory. such ,self serving glory i call it. and beleive me when you see on the news on how much some of these countries are helping in the war on terrorism, dont beleive the hype. some of them are more counter productive then anything. |
|
|
| LiquidXtrance |
| Well, then I think he should still focus and give its attention on finding Bin Ladin, the oone who caused all the damage, and if he wants to, once heaving enough evidence that Iraq will attack or show a real time threat, then let it be for Bush. But, with all the attention to a war with Iraq, it gives a lot more liberty for Al Quaeda to plan ....I think.... we are part of history, so only time will tell. |
|
|
|
|
