Foxfyre wrote:I think it is the epitome of naivete to think that any president would govern the same after 9/11 than he would have governed had 9/11 never happened.
Well, yes, but please explain why GWB still pressed on with the tax cuts for the wealthy, to become the first American president ever to approve a tax cut during wartime. And to call it a jobs program is what I would term "the epitome of naivete".
The tax cuts worked, just as they did for Reagan. Reagan's led to the biggest economic expansion in peacetime in modern history.
Bush's tax cuts fueled the great economic news we're getting today.
To pull us out of a deep 9/11 created recession, Mequite, to stimulate the economy, to regenerate the lost jobs, and to get us back on the road to recovery. And according to the latest employment, investor and consumer confidence, and GNP figures, it's working.
Foxfyre wrote:I think if a majority of Americans do not see the danger of radical fundamental Islamic terrorists and unchecked, uncontested terrorism in the world, we will soon expire as the United States of America. I will hope most Americans will get behind anynational leader committed to defend us against all enemies, domestic and foreign.
I think that the Iraq war had nothing at all to do with the "radical fundamental Islamic terrorists", and only served give them another platform to base their hatred, while at the same time straining our resources in Afghanistan and here at home.
Geesh Foxy!
You all said that when we didn't see the danger of witches, black savages, Japanese spies, Interracial marriages, Feminists, war protesters, homosexuals, hippies and Communist sympathizers.
Americans have wanted to overreact to each of these threats with draconian measures. Fortunately throughout history, good sense has prevailed in most of these cases.
It is a tyrant who relies on hysterical fear to force the respect he does not deserve.
Come on Foxy! Terrorism is a real threat, but "expire as the United States of America"?? We don't need Bush attacking foreign countries and whittling away at the Constitution to protect us.
We need rational common sense and faith that the liberty and justice that are at the core of our Democracy are enough.
There are many Americans who have courageously held to their belief by being willing to raise a voice of dissent and restraint during these times of hysteria. Who can forget the clarion call of Edward R. Murrow to the crusading Sen. McCarthy. In this time when communism was the irrational "patriotic fear" he asked the question -- "Have you no shame?".
People willing to question the governement and voice dissent have saved the United States on many occasions.
I fear your call to "get behind a national leader" more than I fear the terrorists. The terrorists can destroy buildings, but they will never destoy the United States.
Rather, It will take a national leader who wields the fears of an unquestioning American public to destroy the United States.
mesquite wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I think if a majority of Americans do not see the danger of radical fundamental Islamic terrorists and unchecked, uncontested terrorism in the world, we will soon expire as the United States of America. I will hope most Americans will get behind anynational leader committed to defend us against all enemies, domestic and foreign.
I think that the Iraq war had nothing at all to do with the "radical fundamental Islamic terrorists", and only served give them another platform to base their hatred, while at the same time straining our resources in Afghanistan and here at home.
...and if you see declassified documents, proving links to Iraq and Al-Quaida? Articles are already being written about Saddam's financial and training assistance to AQ. They just don't seem to be given much, if any, play in the media.
Sofia wrote:The tax cuts worked, just as they did for Reagan. Reagan's led to the biggest economic expansion in peacetime in modern history.
The expansion came after Bush I and Clinton reinstated some upper income brackets to balance the budget and restore confidence in the government.
Bush's tax cuts fueled the great economic news we're getting today?
Bush's tax cuts fueled the great economic news we're getting today??
Care to back that up, with, well, ANYTHING?
msolga wrote:That's very sad, Phoenix. He must be something of a disaster for there to be so much apathy towards such an important election. Surely we're not in for MORE years of what we're living through now?
It's enough to make a person want to leave the planet!
Nah - just time for us to launch that pre-emptive strike, Msolga!
Sofia wrote:...and if you see declassified documents, proving links to Iraq and Al-Quaida? Articles are already being written about Saddam's financial and training assistance to AQ. They just don't seem to be given much, if any, play in the media.
And of course it is the liberal media to blame for the lack of attention.
Care to back up the opposing belief?
There are articles supporting my assertion, and the opposing.
The last time we had an enemy with ambitions of conquering the world, it was Hitler. Before that it was Lenin. We had to go to war to take out Hitler. And we had to go to war and threaten war to take out Lenin's protoge.
I believe that we condemn countless people to death or lives little better than death if we bury our heads in the sand and think that Radical Militant Islam does not have that ambition for the world now. And Islam could be an even more dangerous enemy because of its sheer numbers, fanatical zeal, and global saturation.
Do I think GWB has done everything perfectly or even well? Of course not. Do I think he has learned from his mistakes and will get better? I do hold out that hope. Would somebody else be better? Quite possibly, but that is not the option open to us right now.
Do I believe that Al Gore or John Kerry would have done or will do better? I do not.
Do I think a nation will survive that loses its sense of nationalism and its trust in its leaders? No nation ever has.
It seems the sensible thing now is for Americans to quit their bitching about it all and start suggesting some positive solutions. And if they don't have any solutions in mind, then elect people with the capability of coming up with some. We do our country a great disservice when all we have to offer is disatisfaction and complaints. Sometimes all we have to give is our encouragement and support.
Once again, this is silly and hysterical
Quote:
The last time we had an enemy with ambitions of conquering the world, it was Hitler. Before that it was Lenin. We had to go to war to take out Hitler. And we had to go to war and threaten war to take out Lenin's protoge.
I believe that we condemn countless people to death or lives little better than death if we bury our heads in the sand and think that Radical Militant Islam does not have that ambition for the world now. And Islam could be an even more dangerous enemy because of its sheer numbers, fanatical zeal, and global saturation.
First of all, the Soviets wanted to take over the world. This was after the Hitler. The Red Scare was more of a witch hunt than any anti-German sentiment.
Second of all, there is no Islamic rhetoric of world domination. (Or if there is please show it to me). The most radical Islamic groups want to restore the Caliphate in the middle East. Most of the rhetoric involves ending Western influence in the Middle East.
Foxy, using hysterical fear without fact is a common tool used by scoundrels and tyrants.
Sadam had a secular government and oppressed islamic fundamentalists.
And our denial is the most effective weapon our enemies have.
The Sky is Falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oops, I really meant the ground is going up.
Foxfyre wrote:The last time we had an enemy with ambitions of conquering the world, it was Hitler. Before that it was Lenin. We had to go to war to take out Hitler. And we had to go to war and threaten war to take out Lenin's protoge.
Right now there is one nation engaged in overthrowing other governments and attempting to install it's form of government. Unfortunately that is the US. We should not be adding fuel to the fires of fear and hatred. It does not make us more secure.
When Bush says, I'm going to achieve B, and the way I'll do it, is to do A. Bush does A, and sure enough, B is follows. I think it is incumbent on the detractors to prove A didn't achieve B.
Or, what do YOU say sparked this massive economic, employment boom?
-------
Up in Smoke Stacks
The old economy is on fire.
The much-maligned factory sector is booming. Not rising. Not improving. Booming.
According to just-released data from the Institute of Supply Management, which tracks the manufacturing sector, new orders, production, order backlogs, export orders, and employment were very strong in May. The industrial sector is so strong that the speed of supplier deliveries has hit its highest level since April 1979. This means that firms cannot produce fast enough to meet rising demand, which is why commodity prices continue to climb. As a result, capacity use keeps growing and inventories are still too low in relation to skyrocketing sales.
Meanwhile, new factory hiring has jumped to a 31-year high, the best since 1973. Of more than 400 industrial firms surveyed, 36 percent added workers in May while just 7 percent had fewer workers. This is another nail in the coffin of the jobless recovery. As the inventory-rebuilding process ratchets up over the next year, expect even more job creation to follow.
Election-year battleground states in the Midwest industrial heartland are reporting significantly lower unemployment rates compared to one year ago, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April, Michigan registered a 6 percent jobless rate compared to 7.2 percent in April 2003. Ohio's jobless rate fell to 5.8 percent from 6.2 percent. Pennsylvania's dropped to 4.9 percent from 5.4 percent. West Virginia reported 5.4 percent from 6.6 percent a year earlier. Missouri's jobless tally dropped to 4.5 percent from 5.5 percent.
In view of the political significance of these states, it's surprising that administration officials are not loudly commenting on the remarkable ISM manufacturing report, including its sensitive jobs component. Did anyone say outsourcing? Did anyone say "hollowed out"? The naysaying is nonsense. The ISM numbers are consistent with 7.3 percent breakneck growth of gross domestic product.
Rapid productivity gains in manufacturing ?- 5.3 percent over the past year ?- have enabled this sector to produce more with fewer workers. But while the manufacturing share of employment has declined over the past decade, the manufacturing share of GDP has risen.
With the economies of China, India, Japan, and the U.S. booming, the so-called "old" manufacturing sector will be a major contributor to American economic growth. So will the sector that produces basic materials.
Meanwhile, the energy-price boom is completely a function of surging world growth ?- not deliberate supply shortages such as occurred in the 1970s. Today's fuel-price story is not an economic negative. Jobs and incomes are rising along with energy prices. Personal income has increased by an outsized 5.7 percent over the past year, while 1.1 million new payroll jobs have been created since last August. Higher profits are already attracting new investment that will increase energy production ?- especially if government policies keep out of the way. Attracted by big international profits, the Saudis, Russians, and others are rapidly expanding production.
In the U.S., **low tax-rate and **monetary-reflation policies have been the key stimulants to the boom. These pro-growth policy levers are not changing anytime soon. Neither will the booms in Asia.
Economists who today predict a second-half slowdown because of high oil prices and reduced tax refunds are out of their minds. **Tax-rate incentives, not tax-refund cash flows, have created large pro-growth rewards to those who supply investment funding to the industrial sector (along with all the other sectors). It's this funding that results in job creation.
As for money-creation and liquidity, there is good evidence (e.g., the steeply upward-sloping Treasury yield curve) of monetary abundance in the economy. A few quarter-point hikes in the Federal Reserve's basic policy rate won't change this.
Is there an inflation threat to the old-economy boom? Yes, but it's mild. If the Fed doesn't remove some of the emergency liquidity they created since late 2002, industrial price increases from production shortfalls in relation to rising demand will be monetized into a generalized inflation. The Fed must act to prevent this. They should remove emergency liquidity that is no longer needed by the booming economy.
That said,** tax cuts, record productivity, and the growth inherent to the sparkling recovery of America's smoke-stack industries are significant economic developments that are intrinsically counter-inflationary. The headline story is that global competition and technological innovation are creating the biggest old-economy revival in twenty years.
There is no need to fear foreign trade. Nor is there need to worry about outsourcing jobs ?- there are no Benedict Arnold corporations out there. There is also no need for protectionist penalties. Nor is there a place for big tax hikes on investment.
The economic patient is recovering beautifully. Senator John Kerry's European-style witches-brew policy elixir of trade protectionism and tax hikes would be exactly the wrong shot in the economy's arm. If it ain't broke, Sen. Kerry, don't try and fix it.
Semiconductor sales are through the roof. Hopefully IT jobs will follow.
Dys,
That is not the ground going up. Put on your hipboots quickly!
