Bush foreign policy review

[Dubya]

Quote:

"But what you can deny is that that growth has come about by the creation of more jobs."

Dave...jobs growth comes AFTER the growth in the economy...job growth does not SPUR the economy. The economy is obviously affected by policy...and this administrations policy has been to cut taxes, lower interest rates and encourage investment. It is a historical fact that jobs are the LAST part of a full economic recovery. It is all cyclic. Stop looking to the President to find blame. You obviously can't see through meri's angry words to see the source of his rant.

W

 

[Mr. Cole]

Actually, I've studied economics in some detail so I understand to an extent what's going on. First, the interest rates are controlled by the Fed and not the administration directly. And hopefully the Fed is an apolitical entity, but we know how that works at times. Interest rates have fallen to the level they have because of the overall weakness in the economy. Lower interest rates make it cheaper for companies to make large capital investments, thereby stimulating the economy, hopefully. At least that's what should happen in theory. Even after the rates were lowered to unprecedented levels the economy still remained sluggish because companies were scared to make any investments with all the uncertainty. Regular investors did the same by staying back.

The economy remained soft and the rates went lower. Only now are companies starting to invest again. In addtion, if you're looking for somewhere to place your money, the low rates make bonds less attractive than stocks. The boom in the housing market over the past few years has to do with low rates. Real estate tend to be anti-cyclical with the broader economy because during a booming economy, most people would rather invest in stocks. Because there are only limited dollars out there, supply and demand dictates that interest rates have to be higher. This is a typically a bad sign for real estate. Jost the opposite happens when the economy is in the crapper and mortage rates are driven lower.

What most people fail to realize is that while the rates are low, the price of houses have gone up as sellers factor the lower financing cost into the price. There is no free lunch and if the government continues to cut taxes without reducing spending, those small tax cuts will be eaten somewhere else.

As far as job growth, I know it's a lagging indicator. But rarely has it been this lagging.

Dave

 

[deadstick]

from another message board...

Letter To The Editor(Durham NC)

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us,resident Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

 

[merikeyegro]

Dubya -

Hey, dude. Wake up. I said that 9-11 effects are NOW moot. No doubt that 9-11 knocked the economy into a tailspin in 2001. It recovered...sort of. The companies are making money, not me. That's why, as Mr. Cole pointed out, the stock market is up. A high Dow Jones does not necessarily mean a good economy. The X factor is outsourcing

Last post -

I find it funny how, when you mention the previous wars, you say the word "attacked." When you mention Iraq and GWB, you use the word "liberate." Hmmm...where's the BS meter, Dubya? No doubt that Dems got us into Vietnam. Quagmire. Bush got us into Iraq. Quagmire? Maybe...time will tell. I would agree that this war was the tail wagging the dog, however. No true terrorists (outside of our control, strangely - Ansar al-Islam in Kurdish Northern Iraq) in Iraq until we invade, get rid of Hussein, and now Iraq is exploding left and right. Are we safer? I would argue not.

OK, so let's recap. I point out some BS from the conservative side, use some logic with economics, and point out some well-documented facts about Iraq. Let's see how badly I get flamed.

Bring it on, Hannity...

 

[Snoopy58]

No, meri, you get flamed because you post rocket science like Bush "knew 9/11 was coming but did ___ to stop it" and "lied to the American people about impending nuclear winter to send thousands of men and women to die" in Iraq.

THAT is why we all think you're sharp has a bowling ball and almost as bright as a box of rocks.

 

[merikeyegro]

Well, "we all" are just the world's best and brightest, spouting your Fox News rhetoric, so I guess I'm outgunned. I digress...

I really wonder who "we all" are, anyway. Go back to your archive of news clips (I'm sure you've already done this, proving your most-enviable intelligence and logic) and listen to Bush speeches about the 45-minutes-to-launch bio and chem weapons, along with the super-secret "nucular" capability of the world's most heinous dictator, that was told to be ready for launch. That's where I speak of "nuclear winter." Surely you can't think that I wasn't being just A LITTLE SARCASTIC. My Lord. Lighten up.

As well, if you would have read my posts (as you clearly have not), you would see that I mentioned that Bush II was warned of an impending attack on the US homeland, was encouraged to create a Nat'l Homeland Security Agency, and told that hijacking airliners was in the works with terror groups. Please, please, PLEASE do me a favor and read the report from the Hart-Rudman Commission on national security. Read the first 10 pages and you'll see what I am talking about. The report was published in February 2001 - www.nssg.gov. No, Bush was not told that the terror attacks were going to happen at 0845 on 9-11-01. I don't think anyone is that good, not even GWB However, he was warned - by that report and by intel briefings from the Clinton Administration (whom you say did nothing to stop terrorism - look at the budgets for anti-terror activities) all the way until August 2001. So, to say that he wasn't aware of something in the works is to disregard reported (in many sources) facts and to simply spout rhetoric and propaganda.

Those who can't lead resort to coercive power and intimidation. You can't inspire me, thus you need to call me names and attempt to discredit and intimidate me while not presenting A SINGLE FACT TO THE CONTRARY. Sorry, I'm not scared so easily.

Good night, sir...