Third Party & Independents: Archives

Oh, brother. At least TRY to hide your disappointement at learning that the president didn’t commit treason and deliberatly permit thousands of Americans to be murdered. This is tactic numero uno of the anti-Bush tiradists—there’s no smoking gun, so we’d better manufacture a little smoke of our own.

“What bits of intel were in the Aug. 5 PDB? Aug. 7?” Yeah, okay—so what bits of intel were there?
The 9-11 Commision has access to PDBs, and the Aug 6 memo is all they’ve chosen to focus on because it’s all that even remotely pertains—but I’m glad we have a blogger here that knows different.

Got anything but vicious innuendo there, my friend? Perhaps instructions from the mothership in those PDB’s? The details of payments from the bin Laden family to the Bush Swiss accounts?

Before the black helicopters swoop down and take us all away, I wonder if we might all take a minute to remind ourselves that the 9-11 Commision exists to find measures that might enhance the security of our country (beyond those already taken by the Bush administration in the Patriot Act and creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security), and not just to fuel the anti-Bush fantasies and fixations of the left.

whoa Martin,

I took Ry’s statement as mistakes were made that probably anyone could have made. Methinks you protest too loudly, as if you are afraid to find your fearless leader at fault for anything.

Sounds a little like Rush on Oxycontin.

Is that how you took it? Just an innocent and honest question about what was in the August 5 and 7 PDBs, since the Aug 6 one is delivering the goods? OxyContin dulls pain—it doesn’t cause hallucinations. For that you need shrooms, acid, or the presidential campaign of John Kerrey.

What the hell are the Demmies doin’ you want Bush on a silver plate with an apple in his mouth?!!!

***Then march your butt over to the library of congress, research Counter-terrorism budgets for 2001 and you will clearly see (fact) that Bush cut the counter-terrorism budget in 2001 and monies that go to the FAA and other bureaucracies involved in that fight.

Ry, agreed, no smoking gun. However, since, I blame Clinton for not beefing up security against potential attacks using airliners, I blame Bush as well, especially in light of the increased ‘chatter’ preceding 9/11 which had intel agents issuing alerts.

Let’s face it, if this happened on Clinton’s watch, or Bush’s, if there was a smoking gun, I’d bet my bottom dollar it would be buried so deep in national security top secret archives not even the archive librarian would know where to find it, if you get my drift.

The American people will have to make up their mind whether our interests were protected as best as could be reasonably expected by one charged with that responsibility. And they will share their decision in November. Lincoln I think, said, you can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

With only 42% of Bush’s campaign promises being reported as ever being kept, I think the people have good reason to rethink their 2000 decision this November.

Watching this debate like we all are makes me think we are are so partison that we can’t see the forest for the trees. We are becoming a nation of Clinton haters or Bush haters. Where we stand on an issue depends on where we sit.

We have have the group who are certain Clinton is the cause of all of this terror problem. After all he had 8 years to fix it and didn’t. And then the other side that says Bush is a liar and mislead the country. I just can’t imagine that either of these men intentionaly harmed the country.

I think the root of all this is faulty intelligence. I think we placed way to much confindence in technology. For instance this intelligence community advised President Clinton on a military target. And then of course we blew up a pharmacy. That isn’t Clinton’s fault. These are the same people who said Iraq had WMD. They are also the same people who were not able to stop 9/11. If we go back a bit, they also missed the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What seems crazy to me, is this is a problem that the left and right should be able to actually agree on, and demand correction. Given better intelligence, these terrible problems of WMD and 9/11 would not be here.

I think Dr. Rice and Mr Clarke did a good job in outlining this issue. If you take out the flame throwing, both were saying that there are serious systemic problems in our intelligence community. It isn’t so much individuals as it is laws, and policies and having the will to overcome institutional enertia.

We can blame the Clinton or blame the Bush. At the root I the motive there is to hang on to power or get more power. Which ever side wins, will still be faced with this hard cold fact. The intelligence community needs to be overhauled.
Or do the democrats want to bomb pharmacies in the future? Do the Repubicans want to hear the wrath of the left over the next issue like WMD??

Just some thoughts,

Craig

Martin,

I think you took my post the complete wrong way, but perhaps I wasn’t clear, or perhaps I take your comment the wrong way.

I was agreeing with the Administration’s side: They get reports about all kinds of things — what China was up to and who had intercontinental ballistic missiles, for instance — there was no reason to go to red alert over unspecific intelligence in an Aug. 6 briefing, because the CIA and FBI were already looking into it.

What I meant by mentioning the Aug. 5 and Aug. 7 briefs was not those specific days but generally: the U.S. hears all kinds of threats, steps have to be taken against them all, but in the context of ongoing danger, what made the Aug. 6 so important that it could have, by itself, prevented September 11th. I feel, after reading the memo, nothing.

But other people, especially people already upset with the administration, will find the memo all they need to indict Bush, when, if they put the memo in context, it most certainly isn’t even close to being any kind of evidence. In fact the 70 full field investigations should show anti-Bush types what was being done, not what wasn’t.

I know this isn’t directly on topic. I saw some data on rasmussen reports, that show just how partison we are.

The ecomnomy is growing currently at the highest rate in nearly 20 years, and 49% of Democrats believe the country is CURRENTLY in a recession, and 61% believe the ecomomy is getting worse not better. How can we be having record economic growth and the economy getting worse?

The answer is because, we are hyper partison this year. Whether Condi did well or not simply is determined by if you have a D or an R after your name. Whether the stock market is up or down depends on if you are a D or an R. Whether the economy is growing or in recession has absolutely nothing to do with facts, it is simply a matter of your party affilation. Whether Kerry is good or bad, is simply a matter of the same things.

Gonna be a great year,

Craig.

P.S. The economy is fine.

Craig

Craig, I agree with your sentiments, but must disagree about the Sudan missile hit. It is well known that chemical factories can be dual-purposed. A CIA agent sent into the area took soil samples which tested positive for a residue known to be from chemical weapons production.

But in general I feel much like Ry in my sentiments. It’s no smoking gun, but it certainly calls for follow-up.

Unfortunately, his Vulcans are overconfident of their picture of the world, and such overconfidence does not do well to breed the will to follow up on the facts and theories.

Craig, I think the valid question as to the growth in the economy is whether or not that economy is over valued. Growth is not a good thing when it is not supported by the fundamentals, and I have been hearing among disparate sources in the Business media that many stocks are overvalued, which is part of what is driving the DJIA down right now.

What I’m saying is that you might want to be wary of this being a bubble, and that you might want to prepare for it to collapse. Also, you might want to be wary of the business implications of extended chaos in Iraq, as well as continued deficit spending.

Martin,

I think you should re-read the article before jumping the gun and making vitriolic comments. You obviously didn’t understand the author’s point at all.

It’s funny, I see something very different from the rest of you when I read it:

“We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a … service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, F.B.I. information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”

“Smoking gun”? I suppose that depends on what you’re looking for. If you’re a conspiracy theorist looking for proof that Bush aided and abetted September 11th, of course it’s not a smoking gun. If, however, you’re a more reasonable person looking for evidence that he had been warned of possible hijackings and other terrorist attacks in the US, I’d say that is pretty clear cut evidence that he was. The question now is, of course, did he act upon that intelligence in an appropriate manner?

To continue the frequent analogy with Pearl Harbor that has been made… if there was evidence that the president had been warned in advance that the Japanese were making preparations consistent for a major long-range attack on the US, would you hold him responsible for not having acted on that intelligence even if the specifics of when and where were unknown?

>>>>>CRAIG;

If you had twelve apples and someone took away nine..Okaaay…
and then gave you back one really, really quick!!!!!!

THEN YOU’D UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW!!! (joke)

Just because it seems to be coming back fast does’nt mean it will neccessarily grow to what it was. Alot of that is up to the fed. and consumer confidence. also purchasing power of the dollar overseas that our manufacturers need to be reasonably over-valued (imho) and is’nt.

We’ve got rediculous spending going on (record high deficits) and Bush administration is running our nation as an export economy when we are for the most part an import/consumerist economy. Meaning that we buy from abroad and either sell here or buy to manufacture here. Then there are high tarrifs that businesses have to absorb the cost of that get passed on to consumers. Pushing inflation up, due to goods costing more to produce here and import here. The cost of food will go up and most certainly gas prices. I’m not an economist or a Lou Dobbs, table pounder. Nor an isolationist as seems to be the accusation of the mainstream right if you debate them on their making our country exporter dominant when businesses are forced to make consumers absorb extra costs. But I do know what is going on in essense.

Some goods overseas are cheap enough but such as with foreign car manufacturers in the U.S. that need to get the parts made overseas and export them here for assembly we will ultimately be the ones to absorb that cost.

CRAIG,let me ask you something, if say, you were to, say make chairs to sell abroad in other markets overseas. The lumber costs you three hundred, the nails fifty, tools another four hundred, and the space five hundred a month.

What overseas market or country would you be able to sell to and break even in. Where would you sell your line of furniture overseas to make a buck?

Again I am no economist.

Skunkbud:

I do know a bit about the economy. First of all the data from Rasumussen research:

62% of Republicans believe the economy is getting better. (They are statistically correct)

61% of Democrats believe the economy is getting worse. 49% believe we are still in a recession.

The recession has been over for several years. There are several indicators to a recession. The stock market is generally considered a leading indicator. That is why when the market reached it’s peak in March of 2000 it was no ones surprize the the economy fell into recession in 2001.

Unemployement is a lagging indicator. That means that it improves after the recession is over. Unemployment is not high now. The unemployment rate in the first Bush term has averaged less then the first Clinton term. It is not far from where Clinton ran in 1996 against Dole.

The stock market is predicting a positive economy. As we move into the job creation phase of this current expansion, the unemployment rate should decline over time.

The truth as I see it is that presidents only marginally effect these trends. Whoever is elected this year, whether Kerry or Bush should have great job numbers to run on in 2008. But then there will be another part of the economy that is hurting.

After job growth is inflationary. As the job numbers improve, watch for inflation to tick higher, and then interest rates. In 2008 whoever looses this election will be able to blame the other for higher interest rates and inflation. The truth however is that it will problably happen whoever wins.

My point is why are rank and file democrats so out of touch with facts on the economy? I think it is because democrat leaders are focusing on the current downside (unemployment) without discussing the big picture too much. (Growth in GDP, low interest rates, etc.) The information they are choosing to look at is the negative information because this helps give a reason to defeat Bush. Just as democrats are accusing bush of misleading the country on Iraq, they are busy misleading the country on the state of the economy. And the game goes on, and on, and on, and on. Both parties are equally to blame.

Craig

That is understandable, Craig. Last poll I saw about 8 weeks ago showed that 49 or 50% of American public still believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and it was Iraqi’s who were on the planes.

Hmmm, wonder which half that was? The public at large does not pay attention to political affairs the way folks on this site do. Takes months or longer for the public catch up on little details such as these.

As for the economy. If one looks at it in a snapshot today, yes, it looks like the recovery continues. But the economy is not static, it is fluid with many actions today having consequences both short, long, and very long term. When the economy is looked at in this far more realistic manner, including its impact on future earnings of workings, future taxation on workers, disposeable income just 10 years out, the economy is looking far from good.

With over 7 trillion dollars of national debt, a huge trade loss and deficits, and a complete failure of Bush’s promise for 2 million jobs this year, the Republicans simply borrowed from the next generation to win votes from this one. Like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, the debt is not paid and the economy is no where near being sound and dependable.

David:

My point is simply that rank and file democrats are out of touch with where the economy is. They do not know that the recession has ended and that the economy is improving. A strong majority believe the economy is deteriorating.

THEEEEEE point is that this year the electoriate can’t see the truth for partisonship. As it relates to this thread, how Condi did is simply a matter of whether one is a democrat or a republican. How the war is going is dependent upon political party.

Obviously both cannot be true at the same time so the truth is far from all of us. That means progress is probably not just around the corner.

Craig

Craig:

“Obviously both cannot be true at the same time so the truth is far from all of us.”

Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. If you have a situation that could be either A or B, and can’t be both A and B at the same time, you can’t conclude from those facts alone that it is neither A nor B. That’s like saying a coin can land heads or tails, but can’t be both heads and tails at the same time, so must be neither heads nor tails.

As for the economy? I don’t know. I do know that jobs have not been recovered. Let’s say that is a lagging indicator. Are we sure that the other indicators mean that jobs will be coming back? Does the GDP which you mentioned include money made by companies which, while based in the US, send their work overseas to get cheap labor? If it does, then the GDP would not be an indicator of the direction employment in the US will go.

Like most people, I’m really not an expert on economics. For me, the economy appears to be at its best when more people are employed, when they’re making good wages, and when they have the money to spend on other things that will further create and sustain jobs. I don’t see that right now, so I see the economy as not being that great. I think most people, not being experts in economic theory and not seeing the direct results of the supposed record economic growth we are experiencing, feel the same way.

It’s also important to note that there are competing theories of economics being subscribed to… I don’t know the term for the democrat’s one, but I think it’s fair to say that presently most republican lawmakers are firm believers in the “trickle-down” theory of economics. As such, there may be drastically different economic indicators measured by each group and set forth as evidence of growth or recession according to their personal theories.

>>>Craig,

***Being that I am not an economist let me refer you to those that are academics in the field. Take it up with them at WWW.EPINET.ORG these are economists that have been on CSPAN (morning show) CNN and MSNBC. These are acredited PHD’s I think the republicans need to hear from. Not some guy with a marijuana reference as his alias, but from the people who know. And not from an administration that wants to create over-confidence in the market.

WWW.EPINET.ORG

Craig>>> if that is not to your liking, check out ‘The Brookings Institution website’ at WWW.BROOK.EDU

Sorry wrong address C, man. It’s WWW.BROOKINGSINSTITUTION.ORG, under heading of economics. Although to the left there is also Cato institute on the right. Also good and surprisingly impartial.

Jarin:

One of the great things about forums like this is the information that comes from different people. The “offical” group that calles when a recession begins and ends is called the National Bureau of Economic Research. Their website is www.nber.org. A recession is defined as two or more quarters consecutive quarters of negative growth.

The most recent recession started in March 2001 and ended in November of 2001 or about two and a half years ago.

Here are the Unemployment rates for the last several presidential election years.

1960 - 5.5%
1964 - 5.2%
1968 - 3.6%
1972 - 5.6%
1976 - 7.7%
1980 - 7.1%
1984 - 7.5%
1988 - 5.5%
1992 - 7.5%
1996 - 5.4%
2000 - 4.0%

2001 - 4.7
2002 - 5.8
2003 - 6.0
Latest 5.7%

Source is us bureau of labor and statistic.

Noticed that the stock marked peaked (leading indicator) in March of 2000, the recession was in 2001 (concurent indicator) and then unemployment peaked after the recession (lagging indicator)(which is normal), and is now declining.

It is correct to say that the recession began in 2000 with the leading indicators strongly pointing towards recession. It is not correct to blame either party or president as this recession was after the longest expansion in american history. (It was simply over due).

It is interesting to me that according to rasmussen research (www.rasmussen.com) most democrats believe the enonomy is going backwards and it really is going fowards and has been for 2.5 years.

Correction to my previous post.

The stock market predicted (strongly) a recession starting in March of 2000. The recession actually arrived in 2001.

Just a follow up note. I read where Kerry is proposing a misery index. In an economy prices go up and down. The measuring stick that is used to measure this is the CPI. (Consumer Price Index).

The misery index was started by President Carter in 1976 where he added the inflation rate (CPI) to the Unemployment rate. It to was a political stunt but a statitically valid one.

Here is the Misery index for the last elections starting with 1976

1976 - 13.5%
1980 - 20.6% (no wonder Carter lost!!)
1984 - 11.8%
1988 - 9.6%
1992 - 10.5%
1996 - 8.3%
2000 - 6.4% (how did republicans win?)
2004 - 7.7%

The true misery index looks pretty good right now. Sourse is us bureau of labor and statistics. I added CPI and unemplyment rates to get the above.

It looks like Senator Kerry is taking those areas out of the economy that have gone up and putting them together in an attempt to create a false impression about the economy.

What we believe depends on where we sit. Just like Condi.

Well, I happen to have been taught in my economics 101 that the president really has little to do with the economic business cycle. Tax cuts have a minor effect on the economy as a whole. Trade policy does effect things, and of course the Fed. Fiscal Policy does have long term effects on economic growth.

I don’t happen to place much value on polls either. I understand perception is everything in politics, but you can skew a poll to say just about anything you want it to say.

I thought this was about the memo though…

Greg:

I agree it is about the memo. My concern is simply that what people believe is simply based on their current political party.

CH

Craig, that’s neat, as it turns out according to you, enormous defecits, Innopportune tax defferals(not cuts craig), an undervalued dollar (actually there are some benefits), No balanced budget, innordinate pork barrel spending, overly-subsidised corporate agriculture, A war that the middle class will have to pick up the tab on, supply side economics, Bush trying to claim fastfood restaurants as manufacturing(then two weeks later claiming he is going to create 250,000 new manufacturing jobs)are all in our best interest.

Thanks Craig now I see!

And Craig another thing you’ve shown me. The poor of this country deserve a school system that can be bumped off the list for funding based on test scores even though they can’t afford adequate textbooks and supplies. A good education is only the right of those in predominantly white suburbs. You are so right!

Yeah see the real reason that Blue states have much more thriving economies than red states is because the democrats that majoritively run them don’t know a dog-gone thing about economy! Yeah see it has nothing to do with leadership, it’s just magic. Thanks Craig!

Skunkbud:

Thank you for making my point. Where we stand depends on where we sit!!

Deficit spending, lowering the dollar, and low interest rates are exactly what the economy needs in recessions for stimulus.

Craig

As not to ruin this thread further with talk of economy, I’ll just let it get back to “the memo” but if a thread of a topic ever arises of ‘repubs trying to tell dems why they have no validation to the partisanship they feel’ or one on ‘the economy and whom it excludes’, I’ll be more than happy to lock horns. I’m not burying my head in the sand I’m looking at the number of entries on ‘economy’ contrasted to the ‘topic’ itself. And how it might aggravate some that we have derailed this or more to the point monopolized it to one of economic policy and sectors effected and diseffected. Your version is very macro and market-centrifical mine from an applicability standpoint as well as researchable as is yours and we aren’t going to agree.

Skunkbud:

I agree. My intention was to illustrate that over partisonship is developing into a real issue. Sorta over did the illustration.

I will be curious to see if the “truth” about the memo will be Repubicans think it was history, and Democrats think it was a clear warning.

I noticed James Carville wasn’t very middle of the road in his comments about it.

Craig

The editors in this column are supposed to be neither republican nor democrat. So how is our party affiliation supposed to affect our perspective?

Most of the posts are taking shots at republicans because they are in power (house, senate, president).

If you are upset with where the car is going you don’t yell at the passengers. You yell at the driver!

Craig, cutting taxes can be mildly good for an economy like ours, providing the cuts haven’t sent us into deficit spending. Alan Greenspan himself would tell you that deficit spending is the quickest way to kill a growing economy.

And your candidate is deficit spending at a historical rate. Care to Comment?

I obviously agree with the point of our partisanship and it’s hardly worth illustrating, I mean no offense by this. We, I assume this is true, hate Bush if not dislike his policies greatly. He, to me, is a grifter feathering his own nest with everything that he is doing. As well as is a machiavellian prince bent on a policy of ‘de-constructionism’ and corporate interest deregulation. Do I sound partisan? Ofcourse and there’s a reason.

I personally don’t think it has a thing to do with the 2000 election but the callousness of the way he’s acted after he took office and the little he has done in the interest of the people (other than homeland). All three branches-what has he done for anyone other than the wealthy, fundementalists and ofcourse himself?

***He’s let out more hardened criminals from prison due to states being excessively strapped especially in the south, if Clinton were to do that the republicans would go berserk.

Look up this year’s numbers! Does that sound like the republican party that any republican wants? In his ‘state of the union’ he advocated a faith-based prison release program, sounds nice huh? and no one has even picked up on that! Look up the name Rev. Olasky the mainstream press has never uttered it once and that is who Bush’s release program is based on. The highest number of prison releases in years whether they should be out on the street or not are coming out. Tough on crime, hardly!

I am partisan because the blind allegiance keeps the republicans from saying “that might not be a republican thing to do”. How did you rationalize the amount of pork-barrel or the deficits?

Stephen:

Sure. What you are saying doesn’t sound like Alan Greenspan. I have watched him pretty close over the years. What Alan Greenspan would be opposed to would be run away deficits. He also would be for solving the problem through reductions in spending.

Deficits stimulate the encomy. Surpluses act like a break and slow the economy down. Try in yourself. Start charging and see what happens to your “economy”. Stop charging and start saving and see the effect. The only difference is that we eventually stop working one way or another. Countries do not.

In a perfect world when we are under the feds target for growth the budget would carry a deficit, and when we are over the feds target and worried about inflation we would be in surplus.

Actually the quickest way to kill a growing economy is to restrict borrowing. The fed can do that by increasing reserves required by banks. That takes money out of supply and dries up liquidity.

That quickest way to dry up an economy from a presidential point of view would be in increase taxes and create a surplus. Since interest rates cannot be lowered any more in real terms, that action could send the economy into a recession.

A concession from a concervative. At the right time, raising taxes is good for the economy. This is timed the way Clinton did it. Right now the economy is “over stimulated”. If the stimulus isn’t removed the economy eventually will overheat and cause inflation. When that happens a tax increase can keep this in check which will improve the long term survivability of the current recovery. This is what Clinton did. The idea (imperfect science) is to keep the economy in the “sweet spot” .

Watch for job growth numbers. Job growth is the number one inflationary factor. Should the job growth continue, watch interest rates start to rise. Watch the fed start of raise interest rates to “step on the break” a bit. There is no concern about inflation until the job market takes off. If you are invested in Bonds, that is the time to head for the hills with long durations.

All the current hype is what I call the error of extrapolation. The error of extrapolation is basically assuming the current trend will go indefinitly. Instead if you draw a straight line moving upwards from left to right and assume this is the sustainable growth of the economy. Then draw a “squigle” line that is sometimes on top of the straight line and sometimes below but generally following the straight line. When the economy moves too far in one direction the government automatically changes direction (checks and balances). So the current trend is the right one for now, but before the deficit gets to be dangerous (inflationary), there will be a change. If it is Republicans, (generally) they will cut spending, if they are Democrats (generally) they will raise taxes.

Sorry for long response,

Craig

Skunkbud:

How do I rationalize the pork and the deficits?

I think the above my be a pretty good reponse. The spending was needed to stimulate the economy. I do not condone pork as it is interest based. I would much rather have it targeted to something the benefits us all. (Additional funding LNCB would be my first priority personally).

Craig

C-R-A-C-K-P-O-T

Craig I forgot to address the above comments to your answer. And yes most of that is true and you are saying what I said but using the word ‘overheat’ to describe it, then tried to run roughshod over me. FKIAAH

Craig, glad to see you on the topic! Take ridalin.

Here’s something I happened upon. I do so love it when things are atributable and sourced. Perhaps this isn’t ultra-damning, but when you put it on the scale with all fo the other shennanigans, it seems more important. Have at you:

CLAIM:

“I asked the intelligence agency to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced a threat internally, like they thought we had faced a threat in other parts of the world. That’s what the PDB request was.” - President George W. Bush, 4/11/04

FACT:

According to the CIA, the briefing “was not requested by President Bush.” As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, “the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA.” - Washington Post, 3/25/04

Craig, what you apparenty don’t get is this we know what the fed does. We know that interest rates are adjusted by greenspan and that yes he is trying to reach a “sweet spot” Pork barrel is not stimulus, dummy go research the spending itself you will find research grants on bears and cow flatulence and its effects on O-zone. Read a book occasionally. We already know that stuff oh wise one.

Okay no name calling,
let me explain something that yo missed the boat on.

A.What is good for the market is not always good for Americans.
B.This so-called stimulus package does not constructively effect sectors (technology,construction and the like), in other words it’s bad for us. They could have made better choices with that money to help and still brought about an undervalued dollar.
C.If we are gliding on fiat monies, we have to pay it off, tax hike.
D.We already have a war debt coming at us.
E.The war is actually enough of a stimulus to stave things off.
F.An undervalued dollar hurts American purchasing power.
G.An undervalued dollar creates a rise in products that are reliant upon parts or manufacture overseas
H.An undervalued dollar raises costs on trucking hence food and goods and retail.
I.An undervalued dollar raises oil prices, the hike is connected to the value of our dollar in their market. They aren’t just mean men in robes they are businessmen who have to make a profit.
J.During times of war the Bush Family prospers by that hike.
K.They pushed the war then started spending like drunken sailors on top of that and the war is the stimulus not the excess pork.

I’ll leave it at that.

Do you think they could at least get Bin Laden’s name right? Maybe the military is having such a tough time tracking him down because they are looking for someone named “Bin Ladin.”

Yeah and it’s like no where in the phonebook.
Ladan
Ladon
Ledon
Ledonnis
Ledonnelli
Ledermier

Damn-it!

Lee’s house of fallafel
Lee’s Big and Tall outlet of Kirkuk
Lebowitz fine furnishings

Sarge, I’m tellin’ya he’s not here!

Skunkbud:
Thank you for responding.

On point “E”. According to Senator Kerry, the war is not enough stimulus. He says things haven’t been this bad since the thirties. President Hoover has been an example.

On points E - I, the CPI numbers that measure inflation across the board are just fine. If they were not, interest rates would rise.

But my basis point is that half of democrats believe the recession is still on and that the economy is getting worse not better. How can that be with growth rates that have not been this good in 20 years??

Any ideas??

Craig

Craig, if 500 billion dollars in deficit doesn’t count as runaway, what does? If it’s so profound a debt problem it’s dropping the value of the dollar, I think any question of whether it’s harming the economy is moot.

As for Greenspan’s opinion, it’s on record in Paul O’Neill’s book, and he’s taken no pains to correct author Suskind on it.

Craig,
The reason that I would estimate that it is enough stimulus(the war) is the massive number of government contracts effecting everything from American Steel to biomedical to construction. I am not sure what Kerry has said but I’m sure it was populist.

There are certainly enough gov. contracts out especially in Arms stocks and aeronautics and basically the full bonanza. War hits just about every sector. Just recently Rumsfeld called for a “New Military” meaning rebuilding everything. Perhaps needed, perhaps gratuitous but this is enormous. The pentagon is obviously in favor and the contractors are no doubt all abuzz and contributing to put Bush back in office to get those contracts.

Perhaps the assumption was that they (Bush and co.) needed faster rebound of the market and started tossing pork around and began his irresponsible spending to ensure a fast devaluation of the dollar. I contend as you that it could have been spent more neccessitously, but the reason why the greenlight was given is a mystery unless from my standpoint as a dem you look at who directly om this quick devaluation of our dollar via pork. Yes it creates quick figures that they can point to and show improvement but there may be another reason. To drive THE PRICE OF OIL UP.

These are oilmen and the devaluation would cause the Saudis to slow the valves, so to speak. Judge for yourself but Bush, Cheney, Condaleeza(Chevron), it doesn’t take a genius to see that there was an irrational cause to greenlight such spending when the war would eventually pay off. There’s something more to this as I see it.

I’ll answer the other questions in a sec this screen is screwing up.

In the third paragraph it started doing some funky stuff. The line that says “Who directly ‘om’ this quick devaluation” is supposed to read “Who directly prospers from this quick devaluation” and started erasing letters.

Anyway, Growth rates, why they see that isn’t the growth, it is the means by which the growth is procured and how it hurts us. It takes away purchasing power overseas, hurts retail, trucking,oil prices natural and crude, there is alot of damage that is being created. These are working people that may or not have money in the stockmarket. But the growth isn’t the issue it’s the deconstructing of our school system, the deconstruction of social security(that Bush had Greenspan address recently)there are alot of reasons. They want the war over so we can coe back to some sanity and fiscal responsibility is very important and they don’t care what Nasdaq does we will survive. I don’t know what to tell ya’

Stephen:

What is dropping the dollar is not the defict but low interest rates. Would you invest overseas for these rates??

Craig

Frankly I am not sure why the CPI hasn’t risen there is reason enough to say it should. Prices are inflated by this, go to your local pump or compare natural gas prices with say last year or the year before. Also I know the cost of food has gone up and produce. I’m seeing it, why it isn’t being quoted as up is anomylous I would gather. Frankly I don’t know. perhaps it is up and has retained steadiness and modulates very little. Really I don’t know It should reflect the inflated prices at the pump.

How recent are your figures?

Skunkbud:

You tend to look at the negative side of things. When the dollar falls it makes our goods cheaper abroad. You know al those jobs lost? There would have MORE manufacturing jobs lost if the dollar had not follen. It makes goods made better priced overseas. It also makes imports more expensive. So it helps farmers, as they can get more for their products as well as oilmen. You like farmers but don’t like oilmen. It helps car manufacturers in Detroit, but hurts them in Japan and Europe.

Ya gotta look at the bright side as well as the downside. Lower dollar means more manufacturing jobs stay here, and more americans buy american.

Craig

See that’s the thing that I have been trying to get across Bush has created a backwards market. We are for the most part a consumer-based economy if not there would be very few Wal-marts and Targets and Home Depots and malls and goods on E-bay. This president has his economic underwear on backwards.

We are not an export based economy we are very much the opposite. Head out of the house and look around at all the businesses that require imports to remain stable.

Or stay in and look around your house at all the things made in China and Mexico and Taiwan(actually that’s China too) then compare them to how many things you have that are made in the US you may have a few shirts or something but it’s all imports.

You may drive a Chevrolet or a Ford do you have any idea how reliant we are on parts made overseas. I can guarantee that the computer you are sitting in front of is atleast 40% chinese made chips. Intel isn’t even made in America. Think about it and take a look around you.

And as a democrat Newt Gingrich would agree with me insead of this insanity about export as our main modus Operandi. We are an IMPORT ECONOMY!

I’m not sure where you have been for the last twenty years but we have Government subsidised corporate agribusiness not family farmers they can’t even afford to get into the agriculture business.

Also the majority of our state economies and city economies are majoritively based on revenue from retail businesses. The majority of people in this country make their money in retail sales of some sort and a good portion of those sales are imported goods it keeps us afloat locally and nationally. Even people who are manufacturing smallscale are reliant on imports, big scale reliant on imports and no sale consumers are reliant on imports.

The only ones who aren’t namely are in construction, which is up due to the current interest rates, and service businesses and industries.

PLEASE DISREGARD ABOVE STATEMENTS AS I AM PULLING THEM OUT OF MY (EXPLETIVE REMOVED)!

I am only joking I just wanted to see how far I could argue what would be destructive and nihilist policy for this country’s economy.

Craig, I’m BS-ing I thought I could get a more Raucous arguement.

Skunkbud, I didn’t take your bait, but now I wish I would have. It may have been interesting. ;)

Global free markets have a tendancy to bring equilibrium to certain aspects of the economies participating in them. Money will always chase after the lowest bidder, but then after a while of that things inflate to where they can no longer be the lowest bidder.

It was supremely arrogant of Americans to think that they had some sort of a constitutional right to build widgets in a factory at x level of a standard of living when other people in the world were in more miserable conditions and could do equal work. The exportation of jobs to remedy that condition can only be TEMPORARY though. India and other parts of the world are currently bidding lower than us, but they won’t forever. Increased affluence will increase their labor bid in the open market, and decreased American affluence will decrease the American bid. Things even out over time, at a place higher than the third world, and lower than the American notion of an x-box in every bedroom. Probably more like what was thought to be adequate in America in the 1950s.

This is also why I’m not a believer in contributing to international “charities”. We already do—we ship them jobs, so there is no need to ship them Unimix.

Skunkbud, a recent economic report has said that there indeed has been a .5 percent CPI increase.

Translated to English: Inflation is back.

Craig, there are bright sides to a cheaper dollar, but it also means we are paying higher prices for imports. Given all the outsourcing of manufacturing we’ve done, that puts a drag on our economy and corporate profits.