Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Hold on to your hat! The blues will be all over you with each and every mistake that has been made.
After all - we do expect the man that holds the highest office in the land to be infallible - when he is a Red that is - and making bigger decisions than who should ‘visit’ him in the Oval Office.

I too see a parallel with the Roman Empire. It over-extended itself in its imperial quest for world power and so it was eventually brought down. From Germany to South Korea, the U.S. has made itself military bases that shall one day be its doom.

“The more enemies a country has, the larger its armies and vice versa.” Sun Tzu

So … why do N.Korea and China need such big armies?
There are countries that do not have large armies because they know the U.S. will come to their rescue. Canada?

Hmmm… The Bush Team is very good at taking credit as they are for avoiding blame of the failures. Throwing a bunch of Enlisted Men as scapegoats for the Right’s Torture Policy has got to be one of the most cowardly things I have ever seen.

By the Way, a Car Bomb just exploded in Lebanon. Another Great Bush Success!!!

I also hear Osama Bin Ladin is planning to attack the US Mainland again just in time for the 2006 Elections. With Luck, the Republicans can terrify the population again with their Color Coding.

A quote from Aldous;
“Hmmm… The Bush Team is very good at taking credit as they are for avoiding blame of the failures. Throwing a bunch of Enlisted Men as scapegoats for the Right’s Torture Policy has got to be one of the most cowardly things I have ever seen. ….”

I can copy and paste with the best of them also!

It has been PROVEN that there is NOT a ‘torture policy’. Did you not get that memo?

bugcrazy:

The reason Canada has no big armies is because the vast bulk of its budget is used to give free Health Care, Education and other Social Services to its Citizens. The US cannot afford that but the US DOES have Carriers, Tanks, etc. Its just a question of priorities.

bugcrazy:

Ah yes… You refer to Alberto Gonzales and his “I do not remember” Minuteless Meetings. Or perhaps to the Pentagon Investigation absolving itself of any and all responsibility? I suppose withdrawing from the International Court DOES make sense. Heaven forbid if any of your NeoCons ever get arrested for Crimes Against Humanity. They might make a Deal and roll over the Entire Republican Party after all.

So you are advocating we disband our forces?
Just what do you think would happen then? Not just to us but to everyone else?
Canada can ‘afford’ the way they do things, in part, thanks to US.
Don’t you think they would HAVE TO spend money on an Army if we weren’t next door?
Maybe Canada should pay for our National Healthcare, Education and the other services for our people since they know they can count on our help Militarily. FREE of charge.

Perhaps if Bush would stop screwing with the Fiscal Policy, we might actually have money for both. The only Presidents to ever balance the Budget were Democrats. The only thing Republicans do is “Go to War”, “Ruin the Economy”, “Get a Democrat to fix Economy”, “Get Elected”, “Go to War Again”, “Repeat Process”.

bugcrazy, you missed my point entirely. I wasn’t talking about the disarmament of our forces, nor the size of China’s and North Korea’s armies. The fact is that China and North Korea have no military bases outside their own country while the U.S. has hundreds.

This is the Roman-style imperialism that I was warning of. Keep your army, but just remember why it’s so big.

Actually, the Fall of the Roman Empire had nothing to do with its Imperialism. It fell because its Citizens stopped being Citizens worthy of the name.

There was a time when the Word of Rome was enough to place your future in. The Pharoah of Egypt depended on Rome to guarantee that his two children share power for example. There was no fear that Rome would take over or break its Word.

The Fall of Rome began when its Citizens refused to keep an eye on its Government or did nothing when Dictators gained Power. They began to hire Mercenaries to fight for them, replacing Duty with Greed. They brought in Slaves to do their menial work so they became Fat and Lazy. Senators sold their Loyalty to those who could afford them.

Ofcourse, this would never happen to the US of A.

Aldous

Canada can devote so much money to domestic programs BECAUSE the U.S. has carriers. Unless you believe that no foreign power would like to take the wonderful things Canadians have built for themselves. Without U.S. power, others would have to produce their own security. The world with the U.S. might not be perfect, but the world without it would be a lot worse. Consider what happened when the U.S. would not exercise power commensurate with its potential from 1920-1941. Things were not so good.

Re Osama – he has been planning a second strike against the U.S. since before 9/11. He has been unable to carry out attacks so far because our friends and we have stopped him. Eventually he might get lucky. I don’t know what to say beyond that. Predicting a possible terror attack is like predicting a stock market crash. You will always be right in the long run, but it not very useful or prescient if you make the prediction too often.

Zeek
Whenever you give Roman parallels, you have to be specific. The episode with Phyrrus took place just after 300 BC. You will recall that the Roman Empire endured seven hundred more years in the west and about 1700 more years in the east.

Everybody loves Sun Tzu because he can be quoted in some many context. The trick with military is to have one whose strength is commensurate with the county’s needs.

Jack, I think you guys pat yourselves on the back far too soon. You may have started certain trends in motion, perhaps some positive ones, but these successes, where they actually deserve that description, are not occuring in a vaccuum.

I think some of Bush’s recent successes may come back to haunt him and the Republican party. The Bankruptcy bill will be one example. Bush encouraged Americans to spend and stimulate the economy, Americans have gone deep into debt across the board, interests rates are about to go up, and guess what: they just passed a law making it harder for private citizens to declare bankruptcy.

Not to mention that wonderful tort reform. I wonder how the public interests are supposed to be defended on these matters, if the executive branch protects the businesses, if the legislative branch doesn’t regulate, and if the judges and juries can’t punish these quite wealthy corporations? Why is the focus on limiting the justice the victims can gain from even a legitimate case, rather than throwing out the truly frivolous lawsuits at the outset?

Aldous

The same goes for you re Roman history – you have to be very precise.

I suppose you are talking about Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy. What is it that happened to Ptolemy after Caesar arrived? And what happened to Egypt after the battle of Actium?

The decadence you are talking about and the fall of the Roman Republic occurred around that same time and for the next 200 years the Roman world enjoyed the pax Romana. I agree that the people came to rely on the government for too many of their needs and allowed it to extend its power too far, but I am not sure which lesson that teaches. Both conservatives and liberal can find ammunition there.

Decadence was a problem, but the bigger problem was that the Roman constitution just wasn’t adapted to the needs of a large state and there was no mechanism for peaceful succession. Here the parallels with the U.S. are not strong.

If Canada’s health care system is so great, why do the Canadians cross the border for major surgery? Example: waiting list of several months for open-heart surgery.

Canada pays for their social programs. They are taxed to death. Of course that fits in with the socialist’s redistribution of wealth policy.

In Canada, you can enlist in the military at the age of 40 or 50 years old. They use military pay as a supplement to the social security program. The military they have is strictly a token military.

Admiral North, who led the investigation dealing with torture, said there was no such policy in the Pentagon. But, I forgot, he is an idiot & his investigation was a sham. But, we didn’t have any trouble believing every word out of General Wesley Clark’s mouth, did we?

“Jack, I think you guys pat yourselves on the back far too soon.”

This is code for “even if things in the world go great, they would have happened anyway, Bush or no Bush”.

“I think some of Bush’s recent successes may come back to haunt him and the Republican party.”

This is code for “I hope everything Bush does, turns to crap”.

Aldous:
“Senators sold their Loyalty to those who could afford them.

Ofcourse, this would never happen to the US of A.”

And what politicians did you vote for in the last election? Can you name ONE that will not be set for life as a result of being elected? Can you name ONE that has not taken campaign money from a person/group that does NOT want something in return?
How’s the ‘Big Dig’ going?
Did you have to decide between the lesser of two evils in your District for any office?
Placing the blame for everything on one man is a bit of a stretch.

The Dems have never balanced the budget on their own, the same as things don’t get screwed up solely by one man or one party.
So what if the Reds are ‘in power’. The Blues need to do more than just disagree about everything.

Saying things are on the road to improvement does not make a celebration. There is not the back patting going on that blues claim there is. It is a long hard road. Heard that one?

Jack (and anyone who needs a Roman history lesson):
From 200 B.C. to about 450 A.D. was the only time the Romans had an “Empire.” Throughout that entire period their imperialistic style changed very little. So, I thought it would be unneccessary to give a history lesson before making my little comparison, but I guess I was wrong.

@Aldous
I see what you mean, but perhaps I should have put it differently. Roman imperialism was driven by the hunger for world power, much like the U.S. This greed manifested itself in other forms as well (which you enumerated), many of which can indeed be attributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. This is the greed that I fear the U.S. becomes more possessed of by the day.

@Everyone
The military defeat of the Roman Empire was the main point I wanted to stress. To illustrate my point I will use another quote from Sun Tzu,

“If a general sends his armies everywhere, he will everywhere be weak.”

To put it bluntly, if we were to be attacked by a coalition of our enemies, we’d be screwed.

What countries have we captured to make part of the empire of the United States on which the sun never sets? Hmmmm? None!!

Folks, if $80-100 a barrel oil is in our future which the futures markets are beginning to lead us to believe, the Bush administration is tranforming our future into the stagflation economy of the 1970’s past.

The markets are now predicting economic slowdown in the latter half of this year, and Bush’s economic policy team is the weakest and most undereducated team in decades which makes the US vulnerable to act decisively and correctly in the event of another economic shock. And many scenarios for another shock are entirely plausible in our near future.

If our national debt were not climbing to heaven, we would have options to deal with more economic shocks. But, given our dependency upon foreign investors to float 40% of our national debt, the aenemic dollar, and the hugely increased personal debt load in the US, American’s capacity to respond and bounce back from another economic shock is seriously and perhaps even perilously deficient.

Zeek

I am well aware of Roman history, but I find it difficult that anyone can lump 600+ years of history into one category and expect to make any points.

Their imperialist style changed remarkable during that time. In 200 BC Rome was a Republic. By 27 BC it was a primus inter pares principate. It evolved into a more complete and well run Empire during the time of the “good emperors” Went into general chaos after Marcus Aurelius, was totally reorganized by Diocletian. It gets complicated.

Roman history 101 is not sufficient to understanding the Empire and it is impossible to compare the Roman Empire to the U.S. (or any other modern state) unless you define what you mean to the half century and in some cased even the decade.

Jack,
“George Bush is not trying to change the world. He is recognizing that the world HAS changed and is using it.”

No. The world has not changed. The world is still ‘the world.’ What has changed is the Republican perception of the world. Prior to the Bush administration, the US was engaged with ‘the world’ through a multilateralist approach. International relations were generally excellent, the philsophy of the US a peaceful one, and military force was used as a last resort. The same Islamic fundamentalists were there then as are there now.

Republicans opposed working with the UN, and, generally speaking, advocated a kind of ‘isolationism lite.’

As a result of the changed Republican perception, US engagement with the world is unilateralist. ‘You’re either for us or against us.’ International relations are in tatters. The EU and Russia are drifting away from the US, and forming a new, separate power bloc with a currency rivaling our own in strength. The US threatens other countries on a regular basis. Pre-emptive war, torture, and concentrations camps are accepted as part of the Bush landscape.

It may be a trend. It may even be a “juggernaut.” It’s certainly not something to be proud of.

” Tax cuts, Afghanistan, midterm Republican gains in Congress, rapid victory in Iraq, reelection and more Republican gains in Congress, Iraq elections, tort reform…”

Even accepting that as a list of achievements, it’s certainly a short list. Remember, we’re in the fifth year of the Bush administration, and Republicans have controlled the Congress for most of that time. Given that majority, the list of domestic accomplishments is remarkably weak. Tax cuts? Yes, that one earns full credit. It also earns full blame for the ensuing annual budget deficits. Afghanistan was a good move. So was the change in Libya, by the way, although none of us trust Gaddhafi for a second.

In the meantime, the US blunders blindly towards unknown goals. Noble rhetoric about freedom and democracy are belied by actions.

Two hundred years ago, the ideals of the French Revolution set a juggernaut loose in Haiti. Inspired by a belief in liberty, equality, and brotherhood, slavery was overthrown in Haiti, and independence established. That process included a three-way race war of appalling ferocity, a series of dictatorships, and a degree of poverty which still exists today.

Successful leadership does not react to circumstances. Successful leadership frames the circumstances to ensure a desirable outcome.

Setting a ‘juggernaut’ in motion with no idea of where it will go is not the hallmark of successful, competent leadership.

Zeek, it was the bribing of the Northern Goth warlords which snowballed into ever increasing expenses to try and maintain the empires furthest reaches, while lacking the ability to extract comparable taxes from those reaches that eroded the empires economic stability and diluted and broke the military’s chain of command throughout the empire. This all took place beginning around the time of the rise of Christianity and lasted a couple hundred years through a slow but inexorable process.

This is often the case with failed nations or empires, policies are set in place whose deleterious effects are not discernable or appreciated until it is too late to change course and make a difference. This is as true today as ever, if not more so, due to the fact that modern societies focus ever more on short term political and economic strategies and policies abdicating responsibility to the longer term and underlying incremental direction changes of the society.

David, whether or not you want to get into the finer points of Roman history the spirit of what you’re saying is more or less in agreement with me.

Jack, again, I understand that you can go into finer points of Roman history, but the spirit remains the same. I’m not saying that 600 years of Roman history was a stagnant unchanging pool, that would be like saying that the U.S.A’s 400 year history heralded no significant changes.

I just tried keeping my analogy simple and vague to keep things from sidetracking but some of the “higher level thinkers” such as yourself sidetracked the debate anyways (which is Ok I guess). However, fun as this is, I think we should get back to the present.

Here, since I feel so bad for steering us off-course I’ll get us started: Shrub certainly is achieving someone’s agenda, but don’t be so sure it’s yours.

Phx8 said: “No. The world has not changed. The world is still ‘the world.’ What has changed is the Republican perception of the world.”

That is very true. But to be more specific, what has changed is the Republican belief that they have the power to change the world. Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Hitler, Bonaparte, Alexander, and many others had such views and we study the failed arrogance of their beliefs to this day. Republicans apparently skipped or slept through those classes.

The U.S. can influence the direction the world takes by example, (which it has done with modest success during the 20th century). But any power which believes it can forcibly change the world through coercion or military might, has let their ego grow larger than the lessons of history.

Sorry about the Roman thing. I can’t stay away from those things. I would cheerfully argue about third century politics, but I recognize that not everyone is as enthusiastic.

Back to the present with no classical allusions.

The world has changed and Bush is changing the world.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we didn’t change our strategic outlook. That was fifteen years ago. The Clinton administration (full disclosure: In general I supported the Clinton policy) talked a lot, but didn’t change much. It wasn’t only the administration’s fault. Most people bought into it. The U.S. was like the dog that has so long lived in the same fenced yard, it doesn’t recognize when the fence is removed. Then we all thought we would just drift into some kind of eternal bliss where free markets, democracy and diversity would spread through the world without anybody having to do much of anything. During the late 1990s everything seemed even better. The Internet and the dot.com boom seemed to be a way to overcome the business cycle. The Internet bubble burst in March 2000, but at least the world seemed benign. Then September 2001 showed us that we still have enemies whose main purpose in life is to hurt us.

Bush didn’t come into office seeking to lead change and we didn’t elect him to do that. But he saw that change had occurred and we couldn’t continue to work as we did before.

The same conditions would have been present if Gore had been elected (and then reelected) president. I happen to think that Bush is doing a better job than Gore would have, but that is only my speculation.

What I ask of my blue colleagues is to recognize that a radical change has (not will) taken place and that the institutions we designed to deal with the old world probably won’t work in the new one. This includes our multilateral institutions and entitlement programs. We can well argue about WHAT we should do, but we should stop talking about whether it is necessary.

Blaine-
I’m saying you declared victory in Afghanistan, with our enemy still outside our grasp, and haven’t even found him since. I’m saying you declared victory in Iraq, and we’ve lost more men and women since then, than before, by far, having to engage in precisely the kind of urban warfare we managed to avoid before Bush made his notorious landing on the carrier. I’m saying you guys are always touting your current triumphs without the kind of tentative perspective that would better key you into keeping your wits sharp and your perception strong about the state of affairs.

In short, you’re declaring victories you haven’t consummated, and you’re wearing people’s patience thin.

As for Bush’s recent successes coming back to haunt him… Well, Bush happens to be too short term of a thinker. He’s always told this will be good for business, and thereby everybody, but so many of these things backfire. Your beloved tax relief has us running record deficits at the same time we’re trying to fight a war. Just how do you think that benefits us?

Really, what this is all about is a myopic approach to policy where it matters more what one can claim than what one does. I’m sick of all the spin, all the attempts to take honest, well-found criticism, and turn it into a commentary on our morality or positive character.

You know what’s really bad? ON C-span, there are no long Republican and Democrat lines, there are Bush supporters, and Democrats. Has being a Republican become solely about defending Bush? How far have you guys strayed from your ideals to protect this mediocre leader?

I could ask the same question, has being a Democrat become soley about slandering Bush?

Our ideals remain the same & President Bush will go down in history as one of our greatest leaders, sorry.

Concerning patience, the Bible says, “tribulation worketh patience”. Don’t pray for patience, you might get tribulation.

Yeah, what is it with C-Span? You can be a Republicans and not a Bush supporter.

I have been reading John Keegan’s “Iraq War” and am now starting “The Pentagon’s New Map.” Anybody read anything good about current strategy lately that is not designed to trash or exalt the current administration?

Jack,
“Then September 2001 showed us that we still have enemies whose main purpose in life is to hurt us.”

Do you really think that is their main purpose? Those people were there before 9/11, and they’re still there. In fact, due to US policies, we’re less safe, and their numbers have increased. But what is their purpose, Jack? Their main purpose is not to attack the US, we both know that, right? They have launched attacks to achieve an end. What do you think their main purpose really is?

Do their actions demand the US define itself, and its actions, in reaction to their agenda? Because that is what I think happened. And that’s not good. That is poor leadership, Jack, plain and simple.

Yes, the world changed when the USSR dissolved. However, that is not the thrust of your article. The world has not really changed these past five years, only the Republican perception of it. In broad terms, the multinational instituitions and entitlement programs work just as well then as they do today.

The changed Republican perception is fundamentally reactionary. Forget the rhetoric. In reality, it advocates aggression abroad, and the crassest advancement of corporate interests at the expense of most Americans. Basically, this is a fossil fuel administration. And, as mentioned earlier, the Bankruptcy Bill is one of the most embarrassing, dirtiest pieces of legislation I’ve seen. Meanwhile, the tax cuts are driving the deficit, and in terms of the economy, we’re in the middle of a slow motion bus crash.

But as for radical changes in the world, it looks very similar to the world of 15 years ago in almost every important respect. The change for Republicans is merely one of perception.

I believe the collapse of Soviet Communism is a focus of today’s problem because we did not change our strategic concept even though everything else changed. The UN is still frozen in the world of 1945, modified by the 1960s. Social Security is a program of the 1930s modified in 1983. NATO was expanded in the 1990s to include new members, but still have not really redefined its mission to do anything meaningful out of area.

Islamic terror is another thing we have not adapted to. We adapted hardly at all before 9/11 and still tentatively now.

Re use of terms - I maybe should not have used the term showed and used reminded instead. But I do believe that they want to hurt us. Their main declared purpose is to get the U.S. and the rest of the Infidel west out of the Islamic world, which to Osama includes places like Spain and the Balkans. One of our contributors - American Pundit - has a list of Osama’s demands. Maybe he will write in with them.

I don’t think we grant this to them so our only option is to defeat them or be defeated by them.

Zeek,

And why do we have bases all over the world? It is not just for our National Security.

Jack,
Well, I agree with most of what you said. Yes, the UN needs to make structural changes, especially in the make-up of the Security Council. Corruption will remain a concern as long as corruption is endemic with so many members. However, the UN still serves its basic purpose of fostering international cooperation, sometimes effectively, sometimes not.
SSI has been tweaked numerous times, but again, in broad terms, it’s still the same, and despite the recent heated rhetoric, it will continue to function successfully for quite some time without changes.
NATO never really did adjust to the new world odor :-) Personally, I think the organization outlived its usefulness.

With the notable exception of Afghanistan, terrorism remains chiefly a matter of intelligence operations. Really, if you think about it, there never really was a “War on Terror.” There was Afghanistan, and then Iraq. Even in Iraq, which resembles 1980’s Afghanistan as the new training ground for the next generation of mujahadeen, fighting terrorism is a matter of intelligence. The insurgency is of a different nature.

OBL listed his demands in a 1998 interview. Very interesting. I read the article, and was so impressed with the caliber of this opponent, I printed it and planned to use OBL as a fictional character. Boy, talk about a missed opportunity! In a nutshell, OBL wanted the the US out of Saudi Arabia, to stop helping Israel, and to prevent western culture from overwhelming the culture of fundamentalist Islam.

But how to defeat a movement like Al Qaida? Intelligence operations tend to address the symptoms, not fundamentals. There will always be poster boys like OBL at the head of that movement.

We can talk about radical change and a truly new world when we disengage from our relationship with Israel, and solve US dependence on foreign oil. It’s not as difficult as it sounds, especially with effective leadership. Defeating an organization such as Al Qaida depends upon this, and upon undermining fundamentalist Islam through a slow process of cultural and economic interaction, just as we ultimately undermined the USSR.

Blaine-

Slander and libel require things to be untrue. Do you really want me to start linking you to Factcheck.org so you can see all the points at which Bush and Co. stretched to truth about Kerry? You don’t want to go there.

As for Bush’s historical place, I would be very cautious about your predictions. First, there are a number of problems we have right now that could spell trouble. Our massive deficit, continued unrest in Iraq, unforseen circumstances in the rest of the Middle East, and our short military manpower are but a few.

But if that doesn’t chasten you, I want you to look back four years ago, and tell me you could have predicted the trials and tribulations of the last presidential term. I’ll admit to you that I had no idea that we would be in the position we are now in that more innocent day and age.

Patience is a virtue, because not all opportunities can be forced, and a calm mind can sometimes distinguish truths and tactics that an impassioned one will not. If we keep our heads and bide our time, good things may come to us, and we might find our way made easier.

Jack-
I suppose they did that because that’s how the calls tended to run. If you’ve listen, there are all these calls about how Bush is this wonderful leader. I rarely hear a Republican caller disagreeing with them.

Too much of the politics nowadays seems to be defined by your side by whether or not it hurts Bush. I say that the P.R. value of what is said about Bush is irrelevant. I will accept something that speaks well of Bush if I get the sense that there is something to back it up. I am more concerned about the reality of what he’s done than I am about whether it hurts him.

I think that is a fair thing to ask of your side. In a hundred years, or even just ten, it will not matter whether Bush was given the positive coverage your side thinks he deserves. This will be about what he did and did not do, and the consequences thereof. If you ignore or marginalize the negative, you won’t necessarily see the last of it then. We need our leadership responsible more than we need it well-liked.

I don’t know what people will think of George Bush 100 years from now. A hundred years ago, Theodore Roosevelt was president. He was very popular at the time and remains well thought of today, but very often popularity at the time doesn’t translate into success in the long run. Truman was very unpopular when he left office and yet most people now think of him as a very good president. Kennedy was phenomenally popular just after his death, but if you look hard for his achievements, they are hard to find.

We are still in the adjustment stage to the fall of the communist Soviet regime. It was a long time ago now, but so many people were invested in the old world order that it took a long time to admit it was gone. All through the 1990s our military was deployed to fight the non-existent Red Army. September 11 may prove to have been not as significant in itself as we thought at the time, but I believe future historians will see that as the end of the post-cold-war “phony peace.” Just because he was president at that time, Bush will be important.

It also looks like the first decade of the 21st Century is a time of political realignment. Reagan cracked the New Deal coalition, but it died a slow death. Sometime around 2002 it seems to have finally expired. Once again, just because he was president, George Bush will be important. If a new Republican coalition replaces it, Bush gets credit. If not, he gets the blame for a missed opportunity.

How future historians will assess the quality of his decisions also depends on events. If peace breaks out in the Middle East, Bush will assuredly get the credit. You can argue that he doesn’t deserve it, but the historical record will show that he instigated the attack on teh Taliban and the Iraq invasion, which will probably be seen as the catalyst to all the followed. It will also show that Bush refused to deal with Arafat and that Arafat’s death was the best thing to happen in a long time (they should give him another Nobel Peace Prize just for dying). Finally, the record will show that Bush stubbornly insisted on staying the course when others were advocating withdrawal or compromise. So Bush will get the credit. Detractors will complain that it is like the rooster getting credit for the sunrise, but that is what will happen. He has already been given the blame in advance, so he should get some of the credit.

castor beans

Canada can spend money on citizen’s need not because she outsource her defence to US. It is because she is a peaceful country. Canadian never go over half a globe to bomb other human’s homes in the name of freedom.

We Canadian has enough force to protect ourselves. It is just USA spend too much to please themselves (They like to kill with guns no matter in the church, in school or in court) Mind you, USA, don’t try to claim credit of providing an ‘protection’ to Canadian. We never ask for it from you. And we never submit to ‘Mafia’ for protection.

Jack-
We aren’t told everything about this president and his decisions, and we do not know the future with any certainty. You talk about what’s happening right now as if its already over. Nothing’s over. Bush may pat himself on the back now, only to see worse happen because he relaxed and made too many quick assumptions.

I don’t think the situations in the Middle East are settled yet, so congratulations, self and otherwise, are unwarranted at this time.

Indeed. Bush makes decisions and policies that have very long term consequences just so the Republicans can take the short term credit. Here are some of the Long Term Consequences:

1. Virtually every Military Expert is predicting the collapse of the Army in 2007.
2. A Car Bomb has just exploded in Lebanon. There is already talk in the streets of rearmament for a Civil War.
3. China has set the stage for invading Taiwan.
4. Afghanistan is now a Drug State.

Keep telling the lie long enough and loud enough
and someone will believe it.

CA

Canada does not have enough military to defend itself. It is the second largest country in the world with remarkable resources and a very small population. It is not possible to change geography, but imagine if you could. Move Canada to anyplace outside the U.S. security umbrella. Imagine yourselves next to China, Russia or Iran. Or imagine yourselves next to relatively peaceful places like Indonesia.

Canada is a great neighbor for the U.S. too and I wouldn’t want anyone else north of our border. But don’t imagine that the world is such a safe place because aggressive people wouldn’t consider pushing Canada around.

During the 19th Century, the U.S. had a very small military to defend a continental sized country. The reason we could do that was because the British navy defended our continent. They did it in their own interests, but it protected ours too. We were a free rider. The U.S. took up the British role.

Aldous

Point by point

Which military experts and exactly what are they predicting? It is the job of experts to call attention to weaknesses. If nothing is done, everything will collapse. Problems must be addressed. That is just a normal part of doing business. You are a little behind the curve on this one anyway. The war opponents have moved beyond the collapse argument generally.

A car bomb is bad. You are blaming Bush for this. But at the same time you and others have implied or said outright that Bush can’t take credit for what is happening there. One or the other you can argue but not both.

China and Taiwan deserves its own page. I wrote a while back re the EU dropping the arms embargo against China that was imposed after the Tiananmen massacre. The U.S. is working hard to calm the situation between China and Taiwan. Everybody knows it is a danger that will make Iraq look easy. But what point is there in that? Nobody is saying that Bush is doing anything other U.S. presidents would not have done. Relations between the U.S. and China are better now than they have been at any time in the last two decades. What else should we be thinking about?

Afghanistan is a bad situation re drugs. It was previously a worse situation with terror and the Taliban. The U.S. doesn’t have the power and certainly not the political will to counter this situation at this time. If we tried, world opinion would be firmly against us. People like the goal, but they would object to any methods used. We have to live with this.

Jack, not that I blame you for this, but you obviously don’t read Chinese websites or media outlets (probably because you can’t read mandarin). However, you are still at fault to say that relations with China are better now than they have been in the last 20 years. The support for the U.S. in China is almost non-existant.

Now, while this isn’t entirely the Shrub administration’s fault, they are nonetheless the biggest contributer to the problem. In almost every political encounter with the U.S. in the past four years the Chinese have come out feeling insulted thanks to the total lack of diplomatic strategy expressed by Shrub. That headstrong demeanor that seems to be working so well in America is failing miserably when it comes to settling international conflicts.

Sidenote: I am not a Democrat but I still slander Shrub all the time. Not all Republicans support that guy ya’ know.

Jack,

Sooner or later folks will again be interested in the process of doing the right thing to get the right result.
Sometimes getting the right result from the wrong action is repugnant.
I am not asking Mr. Bush to be all knowing. I would, however, ask that when he steps in something, that he have a better plan of where and how he would wipe it off his shoe.

Zeek & Rocky

I don’t read Chinese, but I regularly talk to people who do and have access to translated media reports. Even if I did read Chinese, I am not sure that reading blogs would give me a certain idea of what relations were. I read U.S. blog and polls. Think of this blog we are in today. Before the November election, a significant majority of the entries would have led people to believe that the American people opposed George Bush. Obviously this was not true as the November results indicated.

Public opinion is very fluid. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Beyond that, I never addressed the issue of U.S. popularity in China. Public opinion in China is constrained. I said relations, by which I meant just that. The relationship between the U.S. Government and the Chinese government is better now than any time in the last two decades. The Chinese bloggers will not be the ones to decide whether or not the Chinese military attacks Taiwan.

Face it. Bloggers have only tangential influence on U.S. policies. How much less in a place like China, where democracy is viewed with considerably less enthusiasm

As for Bush’s headstrong policy, it seems to be working out well on balance. In a field as complex as foreign policy dealing with issues of war and peace, you can’t expect perfection. The same is true of domestic politics. The Bush administration has successfully faced many of the challenges.

A guy I was talking to about negotiations likened the process to a tennis game. It fits in this case too. You might be playing with a very loud opponent, who shouts and carries on every time to ball is hit. It might be upsetting. But all that matters is getting the ball over the net and in bounds. Bush’s opponents have been throwing fits and smashing the rackets. The crowds have been booing, but Bush keeps on getting the ball over the net. Nothing else really counts.

The Dems have never balanced the budget on their own…

Nice way to raise the bar there. Actually LBJ and a Democratic Congress managed to pass a balanced budget without a Republican explaining how to do it.

“But all that matters is getting the ball over the net and in bounds.”

Jack,

If that was all that mattered, we could have taken out Saddam long ago.

We Americans cannot continue to make the rules as we go along. This is a neighborhood that we all still have to live in, long after Bush has moved on.

The crowds have been booing, but Bush keeps on getting the ball over the net. Nothing else really counts.

I think I better metaphor would be that Bush’s allies keep lowering the net for him. Maybe the net is only being lowered in their own mind though. Bush still hasn’t “brought democracy to the Middle East” any more than LBJ “brought democracy to SE Asia”. I’m not saying that it WON’T happen, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Then of course, there is his brilliant progress on Social Security…

Rocky

It isn’t exactly what I meant.

What I mean is simply that you have to keep your eye on the things that count and not be distracted by the noise, sound and fury.

It gets even worse when you factor in all the synthetic sound and fury produced by interest groups.

The thrust of my post is that if you look at the last five years of the Bush administration, you see that he keeps on getting the ball over the net. I am more hopeful for the future now than any time since 9/11. Opponents keep predicting the imminent demise of the Bush policy, and he keeps on kicking their asses. They keep on thinking he is a fool. Who is the bigger fool? The fool, or the ones that the fool keeps on beating?

Jack,

Wasn’t the line;

“Who’s the bigger fool? The fool, or the ones who follow him”?

At what point do we decide that we cannot afford to continue nation building?

Who do we leave out, in the end process?

Do we continue to bankrupt America to assure the spread of Democracy around the world?

A point I find curious. With the recent announcements from China on Taiwan, we are, in the short term, being financed by those we may fight the next war against.

I’m a democrat, and I think that having a President like George Bush is refreshing. I don’t agree with many of his policies, but at least he tries to accomplish something. You know where he stands on a subject when he speaks. Even though his English is somewhat hard to understand. We need more politicans like him. I like the John Mccains who oppose their party, I like Harry Reid from Nevada who is pro-life even though his party tends to be pro-choice. We need to see more politicians who fight for their beliefs and really strive to actually accomplish things. I would like to see the Bush administration strive to implement an alternative fuel source, and reform health care. Pres. Bush does play politics like any other politician, and I think that the health care industry has the pres in business for them. Examples like banning Canadien prescription drugs, and siding with HMO’s who will only pay for a day of hospitalization even when a Dr. recommends that a patient stays for two days. I feel that Pres. Bush is doing what he thinks is the best for the country. I don’t think he is an evil person who cares for only the rich. However, he can’t relate to the majority of Americans. When you grow up in a rich family it’s hard to really put yourselves in the shoes of the middle class. If he didn’t have anyone to fall back on after his poor business decisions, he would have some understanding of what is happening to the low and middle class Americans. Pres Bush is refreshing to me, even when he is compared to his predecessor. The Pres. says things as they are, when the previous Pres. would speak, it seemed like he never even addressed the issues that he was asked about.
Ivan

“Fool me once, shame on ah, ah, hey Jeff Gannon, what am I supposed to say here again?”

David:

Folks, if $80-100 a barrel oil is in our future which the futures markets are beginning to lead us to believe, the Bush administration is tranforming our future into the stagflation economy of the 1970’s past.

This is just pure speculation. Oil could just as easily be $25.00/barrel in the future. The left has been predicting $100.00 a barrell oil for as long as I remember. Since oil prices on a long term basis go up along with the CPI, eventually the left will be right.

There is almost no corrolation to the econom of the 70’s in terms of inflation. It just aint there.

The markets are now predicting economic slowdown in the latter half of this year, and Bush’s economic policy team is the weakest and most undereducated team in decades which makes the US vulnerable to act decisively and correctly in the event of another economic shock. And many scenarios for another shock are entirely plausible in our near future.

Of course the markets are predicting a slow down in growth. The fed is raising interest rates in order to slow down the ecnomony. The fed is telling congress to reduce the deficit IN ORDER to slow the economy down. The Fed RAISES interest rate when it have CONFIDENCE in the economy and LOWERS rates when it is CONCERNED about recession.

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t71435.html

Rising real estate prices and a resurgent U.S. stock market pushed the net wealth of American households to a record high in the fourth quarter of 2004, the Federal Reserve said Thursday.

So Americans have never been wealthier than we are right now. It sounds like the uneducated in the Bush administration are being misunderestimated again.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2005/gdp404p_fax.pdf

A graph at the above website shows the economy has grown well since 9/11, averaging nearly 4.0% for the last two years.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm601.cfm

If you look at the data on this website and take out the last half year of Clinton’s presidency when the slowdown began (with the stock market meltdown) and all of 2001 with 9/11 you will see little difference between the growth rates of the Clinton and Bush years. The only real difference I can see is that Clinton came into office right after a recession and Bush came into office during a recession.

Craig

Craig-
I think you’re wrong. I think there are plenty of parallels: prosperous economy, saddled with new debts from a war not paid for by taxes and new and costly entitlements. Trick is, this is what happens if we keep this up.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Your tax cuts and deregulation can only be taken so far before they become costs to the system more than benefits. That’s the problem with this heedless insistence on supply side economics. In the real world, wages do more for people than tax cuts, especially tax cuts that target mainly the people who save, and thus take money out of circulation. You can’t do business or run a government fiscal policy for free. I think people should take heed of that.

Aldous:
I would be very careful about how you talk about the use of “Enlisted Men”, you certainly do not want me to show up on your door step!

Just another Navy Cook!

Chief.

President Bush has shown the courage to stand behind his convictions and he is doing exactly what he said he would do. Skillful use of luck or not, is not the point.
It seems nearly everyone has some stylized conception about what war really is. It is not supposed to be a nice business, if it were we would engage in it all the time. The “softies” believe you can wage anytpe of war with nice rules, that is a outright mistake! War is: Every living thing in the enemies nation is to be destroyed without compassion. Every structure is to be destroyed, nothing is to be left. That is what War is. The Hun understood this.
If a nation will not defend itself, it’s people will perish. If we do not defend ourselves we will perish. Our form of democracy works and we must help those people seeking it in anyway we can. If you do not understand the simplicity of this philosophy, you have my sympathy.

I don’t understand why people assume the president has much power over the economy. In truth, the president has nothing to do with the broad trends of the stock market and couldn’t stop a depression even if he knew it was coming. Similarly, he cannot be accredited with economic prosperity.

“Every living thing in the enemies nation is to be destroyed without compassion.”

stivdi,

You are absolutely correct, that is what war is.
Now if we had done that insted of fiddle farting around, I wouldn’t have had a problem.

Craig,
The Dow hit its high of 11723 in 2000. The DJIA stood at 10587 upon Bush’s inauguration 1/20/03, hardly a meltdown. As you know, the market is a leading indicator, an attempt to project the future. It dropped 4.4% during Bush’s first four years, the S&P dropped 14.9% and the Nasdaq 23.3%.
The average time to recover lost jobs during the last 10 recessions was 21 months. Under Bush it took 42 months.

Are Americans wealthier as a result of Bush administration policies? If time permits, and you want to look into a very interesting topic, google and read up on wealth distribution in the US. What makes it so intesting is that, really, no one knows. The best guess is the if you took a group of 1000 Americans, 12 of them own 50% of the wealth, and the other 988 split the remaining 50%. Out of the 12 wealthiest people, 8 of those inherited their wealth. The problem is that numbers on the extremely wealthy are very hard to come by. Wealth might even be more than those numbers. Who chiefly benefited and gained wealth from Bush adminstration policies?

I mentioned some time ago that I though Bush would be the first two-recession president, and I see we’re already talking about a slow down in the economy later this year. But consider this: in the next recession, we won’t be going into it with budget surpluses. We’ll go into this one with huge annual budget deficits, an enormous accumulated deficit, a trade deficit, and a Federal Reserve handcuffed by its need to keep rates high enough to finance those deficits.

Bush and the Republican Congress are driving us towards an economic disaster.

phx8,

You forgot to mention that it is HIS FAULT that oil is $56/barrel because he broke his promise to get his Saudi friends to keep the prices down.

Z,
A president has more control over the domestic economy than most people think. A president proposes policies, such as tax cuts and has a powerful position for proposing legislation, especially when the Congress is controlled by the same party. A president also submits a budget, and has veto power over spending bills. In addition, a president nominates people for positions such as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and appoints such critical positions as the Secretary of the Treasury. Job creation or lack thereof can be affected by acceptance or veto of legislation such as Nafta, Cafta, etc. Foreign economic policy can also be powerfully influenced through appointmees to such organizations as The World Bank.

Decisions to go to war obviously make an enormous difference to the economy.

Shees, I could go on and on. Does a president has absolute control over the economy? No. Does a president has more control over the economy than any other single person or organization? Yes. More than any other single entity, the person occupying the Executive Branch can take credit, or blame, for the economy.

phx8:

The Dow hit its high of 11723 in 2000. The DJIA stood at 10587 upon Bush’s inauguration 1/20/03, hardly a meltdown

Don’t play games with me. You know full and well the S&P as well as the NASDAQ fell dramatically.

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=nasdaq&sid=0&o_symb=nasdaq&freq=2&time=13&x=35&y=19

Take a look at the above chart. The Nasdaq fell by nearly 50% BEFORE bush took office!!!!! THAT IS A MELT DOWN.

Are Americans wealthier as a result of Bush administration policies?

As per the Federal Reserve American wealth is at an all time high. Whether or not Bush gets credit for it, is debatable.

Bush and the Republican Congress are driving us towards an economic disaster.

That sounds like a politically motivated statement, since it was not backed up by facts.

Here is the federal reserves opinion.

As you know, the U.S. economy appears to have made the transition from a period of subpar growth to one of more vigorous expansion. Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose briskly in the second half of last year, fueled by a sizable increase in household spending, a notable strengthening in business investment, and a sharp rebound in exports. Moreover, productivity surged, prices remained stable, and financial conditions improved further. Overall, the economy has lately made impressive gains in output and real incomes, although progress in creating jobs has been limited.

Craig

I agree with both of you about the economy. The president has more influence than any other single individual, but nobody can control the economy.

In any case, the economy is good. Unemployment is low compared to the standards of the last half-century. Productivity growth has been good. The U.S. is growing faster than most other developed economies. If Bush is responsible for it, kudos to Bush. If not why talk about it in relation to the president. In any case, we have no cause to complain.

I expect that several people will now write in to tell me all the things that could go wrong or are about to go wrong. You may be right and if you are you should be rich by this time next year because you can take the proper steps to benefit from the economic change. If you know the future, you can make as much from a falling economy as from a growing one. If you expect double-digit inflation, you are borrowing money at the low fixed rates available today and using it to finance your wealth building. If you expect the market to crash, you are now using selling short. And of course you all are investing in those fast growing economies of Europe that will soon outstrip the U.S. And all your assets are Euro denominated. Good luck guys. Let me know how it comes out.

Stephen:

I think you’re wrong. I think there are plenty of parallels: prosperous economy, saddled with new debts from a war not paid for by taxes and new and costly entitlements.

Well that is your opinion. I didn’t see any refutation of data I presented.

Trick is, this is what happens if we keep this up.

This is an easy one. We aren’t going to!! Just take a look at history. When presidents face recessions they either spend more money, cut taxes or both. When the economy becomes strong, they cut back on spending or raise taxes to slow the economy to make the expansion last longer.

Clinton did the same thing in the early nineties through tax increases. They were important because the economy was growing fast and he needed to apply a break to keep growth sustainable. At the same time interest rates were raised to slow things down a bit. This is all very predictable, and can be found in basic economic books. It has nothing to do with being a democrat or a republican.

As far as the last recession, the stock market started predicting it in February of 2000 before Bush was even nominated. 2001 Bush had not even passed any legislation and we were in recession. I think you know that. Bush inherited a recession. He Clinton had one more year, the recession would have been nearly the same.

Craig

The budget deficit should decline nicely now that the economy is transitioning into a sustainable growth pattern.

Folks, if $80-100 a barrel oil is in our future which the futures markets are beginning to lead us to believe, the Bush administration is tranforming our future into the stagflation economy of the 1970’s past.

Ready for something mega-ironic? In January 2000, Bush criticized Clinton for not “jawboning” OPEC into lowering their prices.
You know what oil was trading for? About $25 a barrel. Now it is $57 a barrel.

phx8, just because the president has the greatest influence of any one person doesn’t mean he determines the economy’s general direction. Sure, he can soften the impact of a recession or bolster a rally, but that’s just about it. Now, in respect to individuals’ personal finances, he can do quite a bit more (massive tax cuts/increases, creation/removal of legal loop holes, etc.). However, to say that he can take credit or blame for economic upturns or downturns is utter nonsense.

As for going to war, yah, that certainly puts a drain on the nation’s economy, but technically, Congress is the entity that declares war, not the president. I guess Shrub never bothered to read the Constitution.

Zeek

The U.S. hasn’t declared war since 1941. You may have noticed that both Democrats and Republicans have deployed forces since then.

President Bush went to Congress for authorization in any case. There is no legitimate criticism of the President on this issue.

Woody

The new higher price of oil is related to the demand in China and India. There is no supply crunch and OPEC has just decided to raise its production. I can’t think of much that George Bush could do to lower the price and I can think of even fewer things he should do about it.

In the medium run, the rise in prices is not a bad thing. Only the higher price actually encourages conservation. People can talk all they want about how they want to conserve, but the only way they will do so is when the price is higher.

In the long run, the price of oil can’t stay above about $40. That is the price where alternatives start to make economic sense. The adjustment might take a few years, but it does happen. That is one reason that our friends the Saudis like to keep the price below $40. They fear that higher prices will push the technologies to develop faster.

So anyone who wants to wean the U.S. off oil should be greet higher prices with some enthusiasm. Arabia can go back to being an exotic, sandy place about which we know little and care less.

Jack, are you saying you agree with this approach? So, what, now we can all just start doing whatever the hell and who cares what the constitution says? Just because precedents have been set doesn’t make it right.

But I digress. The point was that the president doesn’t have signficant economic influence.
**Ducks as “reputable” pundits throw sharp-pointy objects**

Jack,

“I can’t think of much that George Bush could do to lower the price and I can think of even fewer things he should do about it.”

I can. Most people reading this can come up with several reasonable suggestions to lessening our dependence upon foreign oil. Throwing our hands up in the air, and hoping the markets will solve the problem in our favor, is hardly an example of effective leadership at the top.

9/11 provided a unique opportunity to lead the country in a new direction. Sadly, no new direction was indicated. Just more of the same. Afghanistan was an achievement, but it was primarily a reaction, a reflex.

Earlier I wrote:

“Successful leadership does not react to circumstances. Successful leadership frames the circumstances to ensure a desirable outcome.”

And that summarizes the ‘miserable failure’ of leadership by the Bush adminstration. It is, fundamentally, a fossil fuel administration. The basic solution for most problems is not to change, and not to anticipate, but to do more of the same, particularly when it comes to energy.

At its heart, Iraq is about ensuring access to oil.

The lofty rhetoric about freedom & democracy showed up after the occupation started going south. We’re in the fifth year of the Bush administration, and we’re still in a reactionary mode. External events and a slavish devotion to the fossil fuel industry drive policy.

Despite having a Republican Congress behind him, Bush can point to few achievements in terms of domestic policy.

Almost everyone would agree, even Republican Congressman and Bush himself, maybe even Craig :-) that the various deficits are a disaster waiting to happen. The solution? Raise taxes? Cut spending? Take radical action to promote job growth? Mmmmm. No. Just more of the same.

It’s a conservative administration in terms of opposing real change, of doing everything the same as before, only more of it. It’s an administration of reaction. There are vague goals, but there don’t seem to be any plans. And that’s not leadership.

We are not taking enough credit here. We as consumers hold much more power than we seem to think. If we would be more conservative on fuel instead of buying big SUV’s and griping about the price of gas, that is a personal choice. I know, I used to have one, not anymore. Eg. Wal-Mart buys most of their stuff from foreign countries at a much lower price in bulk and is making a fortune doing this. If we decided to stop purchasing things from Wal-Mart and instead went somewhere else, we could ultimately lower prices at Wal-Mart or put them out of business. Supply and demand. If someone is willing to pay the asking price (many are) then why would they want to lower the fuel prices even though I see no real reason they are so high right now.

In New York State about 50 cents per gallon of gas goes to taxes - much less than what oil companies make in profit - want to reduce the cost of gas - reduce our taxes!! Of course, since in New York State the majority of people are ‘on the take’ from the goverment one way or the other - - welfare, state jobs, teachers, unions - this is highly unlikely -

Ha ha ha. Is this a topic? It looks to me like propaganda and one mans infatuation with the president. Give me a break.

Jack-
The Authorization to use force is not an uncontroversial issue. It is the crux of John Dean’s argument in Worse Than Watergate that he knowingly circumvented the required report and circumstances necessary to go to war with Iraq.

Not only that, but on general principle the notion of going to war pre-emptively is not one that has gotten short press, either.

Also, the issue of undeclared wars has been a political issue throughout recent times, and certainly during the later half of the previous century

As for oil, supply and demand will play their parts, and not always to make things cheap. Your people fixate too much on the cost-cutting aspect of the market, and forget that the market can push costs up, especially when we have the kinds of problems with energy infrastructure that we have. Additionally, the China and India issues will not go away, and in fact will probably grow worse. Additionally, part of the growing expense of oil owes itself to energy traders and other speculators who maked their money off of bidding up the price. I don’t think the price is coming down any time soon.

I know you’re an intelligent man, but can’t you see that at some point, Bush’s policies and your interests and opinions about those policies are not entirely in concordance?

Craig said: “The budget deficit should decline nicely now that the economy is transitioning into a sustainable growth pattern.”

We will get a glimpse of whether or not you know more than market analysts and economists tomorrow when Greenspan speaks. If he drops his previous language of small and measured interest rate hikes, you are very likely wrong in your assessments. With the economy expected to slow, if the Fed increases its rate of interest rate hikes it will be because inflation is becoming a greater worry.

The definition of stagflation is rising interest rates and slowing to no economic growth. We already have slowing economic growth. I expect the Fed will make moves to fight escalating inflation. If I am right, your optimism while yours to nourish and hold high in your own view, will be unfounded by the facts at hand.

David:

The greatest danger to inflation is labor costs. As the left has so many times pointed out, job creation has been slow in this recovery. The slow growth in jobs implies very little pressure to increase wages. Of course there is medical expenses, but increases in productivity are basically paying for that.

What this means is that the number one reason for inflation, is muted. Oil (natural resourses) in general may in a minor way increase inflation, but it will increase to historical norms instead of what we had in the 70’s.

With the war in Iraq slowing down over the next few years, expenses there should decrease. If Congress and Bush can hold growth of government below the nominal rate of GDP, the budget deficit should come down nicely.

I disagree with your point about the fed increasing rates to cover inflation. The fed has been on a long and protracted increase in federal funds rates. It is raising rates to keep growth at a managable pace. Inflation comes at some point in a recovery, but usually when there are labor shortages, or low productivity causes the unit cost of labor to increase.

As long as we see only modest hiring, and increasing productivity inflation should stay at or below historical norms.

From a liberal point of view, in times of increasing productivity, you can’t argue for a weak labor market and run away inflation at the same time, you need to pick one.

Craig

David:

If he drops his previous language of small and measured interest rate hikes, you are very likely wrong in your assessments. With the economy expected to slow, if the Fed increases its rate of interest rate hikes it will be because inflation is becoming a greater worry.

Why would Greenspan step on the brake, if the economy is stopping? If the US and Europe head into a recession, the price of oil will drop on it’s own and we will have disinflation. In addition China would also slow and possibly go into a recession because we would not purchase their goods.

What I am reading is that if oil stays where it is, the us GDP will slow .5% which means oil will work like a tax increase.

Craig

Craig, no denigration intended, but, you are thinking very one dimensionally. As I have pointed out before, when one is a net import nation as we are, there are many other causes for inflation outside our borders. Steel and Oil are just two examples of many, many more commodities which are going to inflate in price due to rising global demand for the same goods we need here.

NO. The deficits will not come down, except for an exceptional last year in Bush’s term so he can say he kept his promise one year out of 8. But, the facts are, the policies he has already implemented and will implement along with Congress’s spending to get reelected next year already account for a 9 trillion dollar national debt if don’t increase spending on anything else from this point forward. I am of course including the increased service payments on our national debt as interest rates rise and in lieu of reduced Federal Revenues from Bush’s tax cuts.

I disagree with your point about the fed increasing rates to cover inflation.

You can disagree all you wish, but the facts are facts. And if you read the business news, you will know that inflation is becoming a concern and affecting the bond futures markets as well as a large number of business owners who beginning to scream about the potential of yet a 100% increase in crude oil prices before summer is over.

Craig asked: “Why would Greenspan step on the brake, if the economy is stopping? “

The answer to that is easy and very well documented. Greenspan and the Fed regard the primary reason for being to fight inflation. IF inflation is non-exitent, they will assume their secondary role of stimulating the economy by easing interest rates. But the Fed regards the economy as primarily the responsibility of Congress and fiscal policy, and Greenspan has been warning Bush and Congress about their responsibility for years now.

If inflation is accelerating, the Fed will act on its primary objective, inflation. It does not consider the management of the economic growth as its primary mission, and when you think about it, it shouldn’t either unless there is no inflation. Interest rates which are the only tool the Fed has to work with is a very blunt instrument with a very, very short reach.

If the economy is becoming slowing, and inflation is rising, the Fed will do its job and fight the inflation and expect Bush and Congress to do theirs to pick up economic growth. The Congress and the President have far more tools at their disposal to address economic growth than the Fed does. Like taxes, trade agreements, tariffs, government hiring if job growth needs a boost, etc. etc. etc. I am not saying these tools are all recommended in this scenario. I am just giving the Fed’s perspective.

David:

FEDERAL RESERVE ACT

SECTION 2A—Monetary Policy Objectives

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

You are incorrect about the Fed’s purpose. It is a balancing act between full employment, stable prices and long-term interest rates.

Your misunderstanding of the fed’s purpose makes it hard to debate this issue, and is probably the central reason for our disagreement.

I am not sure where to go. My reference is the actual Federal Reserve Act.

Craig

Greenspan, Voelker and many of the Fed persons regard their number one objective as inflation. As I said, without any misunderstanding at all, is that the economy is secondary when inflation must be dealt with.

It is you Craig, who have not been following the fed. We have many leaders who prioritize their objectives in their job description. The Fed Board of Gov.’s and Greenspan are no different. Fighting inflation is, as has come from their own mouths on many occasions, their job #1.

Craig, I will quote myself lest you think you have scored some kind of points. “IF inflation is non-exitent, they will assume their secondary role of stimulating the economy by easing interest rates.”

The ignorance of the Fed’s written objectives, as you see by my quote, was not lost on me. Apparently, however, their many testimonies before Congress and other places in which they have asserted that inflation is their chief concern, is lost upon you.

Craig, let me give you a quote from an article about Greenspan’s testimony dated June 9, 2004 - remember 2004, we were still looking to expand the economic growth …

Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned the financial markets yesterday to prepare for a sharper rise in interest rates in the months ahead if inflation turns out to be a more serious problem than the Fed’s policy-makers now expect.

Greenspan told investors not to count on the “measured” increases in short-term rates that the Fed described as its preferred strategy in a statement issued after its most recent monetary policy meeting, in early May. That view was based on a judgment, which the Fed chairman said he still held, that inflation is not likely to become a significant problem.

Does this sound like Greenspan is putting economic growth ahead of inflation? No way, Jose’.

Allow me a more recent quote - Last MONTH -

He said a number of inflationary pressures are at play and bear close monitoring in the coming months.

One is a rise in labour costs over the past six months following two years of declines.

Whether this leads to higher inflation will depend on the ability and willingness of companies to pass along higher wage costs to their customers, Greenspan said.

Up to now, he said, high profit margins and competitive pressures have led firms to absorb much of the extra costs.

Greenspan said the inflation outlook will also be shaped by the direction of oil prices and the value of the dollar, which has been falling since early 2002.

The bold is mine to hilight how wrong you are in previous posts stating oil prices are not inflationary.

Before I forget, I would like to Congratulate the Republicans for having Congress interfere in the Terri Schiavo Case. Nothing like Big Government telling the Judiciary what they should do. Wonder if Bush will overrule the Federal Judge when HE decides to let her die?

Conservatives indeed…

David:

The Fed’s mission has never changed. Virtually every entry level ecnomics book states the same three purposes.

As we speak, bond yields have dropped in step with commodity price increases. What does a flattening Bond curve tell you about inflation??
It says inflation is contained, and the economy is slowing.

As we speak the difference in yield spread on TIPS is 275 basis points. No reason to ring the inflation bell there.

You made a point one time about how when you fill up at the pump you feel the inflation right there!! Well sort of. If you were filling up for $30.00 and now it takes $40.00, it means you have $10.00 less to spend on other things. That acts like a brake on the economy, like a tax increase.

In addition Alan Greenspan said on Feb 16, 2005,

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to present the Federal Reserve’s Monetary Policy Report to the Congress. In the seven months since I last testified before this Committee, the U.S. economic expansion has firmed, overall inflation has subsided, and core inflation has remained low.

What I am quoting is Greenspans introduction, what you are quoting is the disclaimers. In nearly every “talk” he will basically say, “here is what I think will happen, on the other hand the following may happen”. You are quoting the “on the other hand” part.

The TIPS spread is predicting inflation in the 3.0 to 3.5% range by the way, which should be fine.

All that is happening on energy is the price is catching up from years of lagging behind the CPI. I paid $1.00 a gallon in 1979 and $2.00 a gallon in 2004. If the price of fuel wants to double every 25 years, that if fine with me.

Craig

What does a flattening Bond curve tell you about inflation??

Nothing over the course of a week. A lot over the course of 3 months or more.

As we speak the difference in yield spread on TIPS is 275 basis points. No reason to ring the inflation bell there.

We’ll see what Greenspan has to say tomorrow.

You made a point one time about how when you fill up at the pump you feel the inflation right there!! Well sort of. If you were filling up for $30.00 and now it takes $40.00, it means you have $10.00 less to spend on other things. That acts like a brake on the economy, like a tax increase.

I used to fill up my Ford F100 for a little over $30. It cost me $65 day before yesterday. Yes, that is inflationary. It is inflationary as Greenspan said, when the airlines, manufacturing industries, shipping and delivery industries, platics industries, and proportional percentage rate taxes at the pump all get passed on to the consumer. Yes, it dampens the economy, but, it also inflates consumer prices.

What I am quoting is Greenspans introduction, what you are quoting is the disclaimers. In nearly every “talk” he will basically say, “here is what I think will happen, on the other hand the following may happen”. You are quoting the “on the other hand” part.

But, when Greenspan made that statement, oil was not $55 a barrel. Like I said, let’s see what he has to say tomorrow. If he indicates rates may move from 25 to 50 basis points, what will that tell you? That the economy is getting overheated? I don’t think so. Inflation is becoming a real concern is what it will mean.

All that is happening on energy is the price is catching up from years of lagging behind the CPI. I paid $1.00 a gallon in 1979 and $2.00 a gallon in 2004. If the price of fuel wants to double every 25 years, that if fine with me.

Are you really that oblivious to price pressure increased oil pricing forces on business owners overhead? Do you think productivity gains can keep such pressures at bay. We have already reached our productivity peak and productivity is now beginning to slide again. One third of American workers report they are being overworked. That is not sustainable, Craig.

Craig,
You’re right about the traditional causes about inflation. Usually wage growth is the first sign, the main driver for inflation, and we’re definitely not seeing that yet.

However, there are of course other causes. There are a variety of opinions about how much effect increased oil prices have upon inflation. Many people look at core PPI, the Price Producer Index number less the most volatile elements of food and oil, as well as the CPI. I saw a recent comment that was kind of funny- take out food, energy, and any other elements that change, and the PPI & CPI will be zero.

The point is that the rise in oil prices seems likely to stay above $40 or higher, and its inflactionary effect takes time to pass through the economy. Personally, I doubt this alone would spur the Fed become more aggressive about raising rates. Now if we see $80 or $100 oil, Katie bar the door, but hopefully that’s a long way off.

It’s the combination of some inflationary pressure from oil, combined with various deficits and the falling dollar, that gives bond markets the heebee-jeebies.

In addition, jobs have yet to be created enough to power increased consumption. I blame outsourcing, but there are few reliable statistics to support opinions on outsourcing one way or another. And to increase uncertainty even further, a recent Labor Pool stood at its lowest point since 1988. I believe it was 65.8%. So what the heck are one third of the working force doing to support themselves? Are that many people off the radar, in an underground economy? And what does that mean?

It’s all opinion, and numbers can be easily manipulated. You quote the fall in Nasdaq before the Bush administration. I quote the DJIA (which I considered a kindness when talink about Bush). We could discuss the big percentage fall in the large & medium caps Dow & S&P, which occured in the first half of 2002, and debate who to blame. There is an element of game playing in that kind of thing.

There’s a general pattern to economic cycles. At first, no one believes it will ever get better. Next, a cautious recognition that it might be getting better. Then, a confident agreement that it’s definitely getting better. Finally, an overconfident declaration that it will never stop getting better. That’s followed by a fall, capitulation, and despair that it will never get better…

As far as equity markets go, there’s confident agreement that it’s getting better. We’re certainly not anywhere near over-confidence. It will be interesting to see if the bond markets will wait for that scenario to play out…

phx8

It’s all opinion, and numbers can be easily manipulated. You quote the fall in Nasdaq before the Bush administration. I quote the DJIA (which I considered a kindness when talink about Bush). We could discuss the big percentage fall in the large & medium caps Dow & S&P, which occured in the first half of 2002, and debate who to blame. There is an element of game playing in that kind of thing.

Great reply. When I step back and look at the whole deal from say the 20’s on, I for the life of me cannot see where one party is superior to another in terms of economic growth. Both sides have their points. For instance Reagan. Democrats nail him because of the budget deficit, but not Rosevelt. Both advanced democracy one by winning WWII and the other by finishing the Cold War.

Clinton had great years but wow the peace dividend. He was right to raise taxes in the mid nineties because it slowed growth. He also lucked out by leaving when the recession signs were in the air but before the recession arrived. These economic cycles do not revolve in perfect unison to political cycles.

Who gets credit for the balanced budget by the way, the Democratic President of the Republican congress?

The negative of a forum like this is that it tries to have politics be the driver in economics and it just aint so. Politics is only one of many moving parts.

Craig

David:

I said:

All that is happening on energy is the price is catching up from years of lagging behind the CPI. I paid $1.00 a gallon in 1979 and $2.00 a gallon in 2004. If the price of fuel wants to double every 25 years, that if fine with me.

But, when Greenspan made that statement, oil was not $55 a barrel. Like I said, let’s see what he has to say tomorrow. If he indicates rates may move from 25 to 50 basis points, what will that tell you? That the economy is getting overheated?

That could happen I suppose, but it is not very likely. Current contracts on the financial market on intrade.com as of now, indicate a 97.8% chance of a .25% increase. And if the 97.8% chance comes true what will that tell you??
It will tell me that the Fed is on a consistent path to bring interest rates to the nuetral position that he started long ago.

Craig

You said:

Are you really that oblivious to price pressure increased oil pricing forces on business owners overhead?

Using the rule of 72, prices doubling every 25 years is about 3% inflation.

David:

YOu said:

But, when Greenspan made that statement, oil was not $55 a barrel. Like I said, let’s see what he has to say tomorrow. If he indicates rates may move from 25 to 50 basis points, what will that tell you?

At MSNBC today:

“While it’s in no one’s forecast, the historical record tells us that there has not been one tightening cycle in the past 30 years in which the Fed failed†to hike rates by a half-point at least once, said David Rosenberg, Merrill Lynch chief North American economist, in a conference call last week.

I suppose if Greenspan says they may have to increase rates by .50 basis points, I will think it is normal!!

Craig

Craig, you would. But, the fact remains, the Fed does not raise from .25 to .50 at least once a year to make you believe it is normal. Believe it or not, there are some folks in government who actually do their jobs for very sound and good reasons. :-)

I can’t think of much that George Bush could do to lower the price and I can think of even fewer things he should do about it.

Weren’t you paying attention, Jack? He can call up OPEC and give them a piece of his mind, like Clinton was to wussy to do. ;)

Woody et al

In the short term, the president can do almost nothing – usefully – about the price of oil.

OPEC recently agreed to pump more oil. This did not impress the markets since almost all OPEC members were cheating so much already that they are almost at capacity. The new development is rising demand from the growing economies of China and India.

In the medium term, the president can encourage the production of more oil. ANWAR exploration is a step in that direction. Beyond that millions of people are working on ways to increase oil production from old fields or alternative ways to tap new ones.

The long run future belongs to alternative fuels. Some of them will be renewables like wind and solar. Hydrogen fuel might be created using clean and safe nuclear energy. The best thing the president can do in this case is ALLOW it to happen. Government is very bad at setting energy policies.

The energy fiasco under Carter is something I am old enough to remember. That put me off government-managed energy for the rest of my life.

In the medium and long run, oil can’t get much about $40 (in 2003 dollars) because at that point alternatives begin to make economic sense. That is why we will never “run out” of oil. At some point we will just not pay attention to it anymore as it will have become a minor part of the mix.

Environmentalists and those seeking energy independence should be happy to see the prices rise. That is the only way most people can be induced to conserve and the only way alternatives begin to make sense.

As long as we don’t do anything stupid – like control the prices of gas and oil, or worse ration it – things will work out just fine. We tried those things in the 1970s with disastrous results. I hope we remember the lesson.

Jack,

You are right that high oil prices are better for the environment (although not so great for the economy). I was just having some fun with your beloved prez.

I am enjoying your cognitive dissonance on oil vs. alternative energy. You say that alternative energy is the future, but oil is good, too. You think that the president is wisely nurturing alternative energy by doing nothing, but you support his opening up public land for oil exploration. Apparently the best way to hasten the demise of fossil fuels is by making more oil available.

Sometimes it seems like the George W. Bush you support is far more of a moderate than the one the rest of us are living with.

Woody-

I don’t think we are doing “nothing” with regards to alternative energy. The last number I saw was about $200m/year in Federal R&D.

“Successful leadership does not react to circumstances. Successful leadership frames the circumstances to ensure a desirable outcome.”

Leaving energy policy to be resolved by the magic of the marketplace is unacceptable. Capitalism is not pro-American. It is merely an efficient system. Outcomes may be in the national interest, and then again, they may not.

For all its inefficiencies, federal government is the only large organizational entity which can consciously direct desirable outcomes in the national interest.

And no branch concentrates power and leadership as much as the Executive Branch.

This thread started as an homage to the leadership of Bush in foreign policy, and we’re now discussing energy policy. The leadership of this fossil fuel administration is nearly non-existent. Effective leadership would determine the best long-term direction, show creativity and boldness, and guide the country towards an achievable goal.

Imagine a president with vision. For example, a proposal from the Oval Office to address energy policy, foreign dependence upon oil, Global Warming, unemployment, and transportation. Imagine a proposal to do the following:
1) Drill ANWR
2) Raise taxes to the levels of 2000
3) Cut discretionary spending by 5% across the board, including the military
4) Mandate minimum mpg for personal vehicles
5) End sales of gasoline-only vehicles by 2007
6) Provide huge tax credits to subsidize purchase of new, energy efficient vehicles
7) Protect the auto industry with subsidies during the transition
8) Revolutionize the interstate transportation industry. Build mag-rails for transport between major urban transport nodes. Trucks would use rail transport between nodes for distribution.

Obviously, I could go on and on. But making revolutionary yet practical proposals, ones that would address national security, global warming, etc., that would be leadership. It would involve something for everyone (and something for everyone to object to), and would direct this country in a defined, positive direction.

That would be leadership.

Government can encourage developments, but must do so with a light hand.

The marketplace is the only place that can resolve issues. We saw that back in the 1970s when the energy crisis was the top issue. All the government programs did very little to alleviate it. President Reagan came into office and used market forces and the problem went away for nearly 25 years. Twenty-five years, by the way IS a long-term solution in human affairs. We don’t really have a problem today. We have a situation.

Phx8 mentions several 1970s style solutions (sorry, don’t mean disrespect.)

1) Drill ANWR

We will. Just like we drilled Alaska before.

2) Raise taxes to the levels of 2000

Balancing the budget is good, but raising taxes slows the economy and hence tax receipts. It is a dynamic process. Tax receipts have been increasing as the economy grows.

2) Cut discretionary spending by 5% across the board, including the military

Only about 33% of spending is discretionary. The government is doing things people want done, especially the discretionary parts. We have to tackle entitlements.

4) Mandate minimum mpg for personal vehicles

We tried that. It is not a bad idea. But the higher price of gas will do that faster than any mandates.

5) End sales of gasoline-only vehicles by 2007.

Why? This also will happen when it becomes practical. Hybrids are already selling well. There is no reason to mandate any particular technology.

6) Provide huge tax credits to subsidize purchase of new, energy efficient vehicles.

Don’t need to. Let the price of gas rise. That provides a huge subsidy to energy efficient vehicles without government intervention and corruption of the economy.

7) Protect the auto industry with subsidies during the transition.

We protected them before. It only weakened them competitively.

8) Revolutionize the interstate transportation industry. Build mag-rails for transport between major urban transport nodes. Trucks would use rail transport between nodes for distribution.

I love this idea, but people don’t want to use trains in many cases. It would work well in urbanized corridors and nowhere else. We already have a decent freight rail system and we use it to move bulk commodities. The American freight rail system is the best in the world. We don’t know this because we compare our lousy passenger rail to their good one.

Woody

I don’t see any contradiction. Alternatives are the future. Oil will be a transition.

Maybe Shrub does have a plan afterall?

I just heard on NPR that Shrub is planning to sell F15’s to Pakistan. Then Pakistan can bomb India and the US can get their jobs back. Plus we’ll have all that extra spending cash from the sale of the F15’s! Ingenious!

GO SHRUB!

F16s are used for close support. They don’t bomb in the sense you mean.

Jack,
“Phx8 mentions several 1970s style solutions (sorry, don?t mean disrespect).”

Very ouch. But before I go off to brood…

The ideas represent brainstorming, ways of addressing foreseeable problems, of being pro-active. Those ideas are palatable, or equally unpalatable, for numberous groups. The point is to anticipate, pay as we go, protect industries, stimulate others, and create jobs.

Strangely, the SSI debate ignores that kind of thinking. If there’s a long-term problem based on projections, why not act to change the projections? Why not encourage immigration & create jobs?

As for revolutionizing the use of railroads, suppose we learned from the airlines, and connected urban and agricultural centers with mag-rail, using hubs? Suppose such trains to some extent replaced highways