0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 08:42 pm
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, The good things you talk about are small compared to our cost. You prolly don't understand the politics of Iraq and Iran.


Your right,I'm not a politician.
I just know what I saw when I was there and what my friends that are still there are telling me,about the schools,hospitals and clinics being built.about how northern Iraq has a thriving economy,about how the Iraqi economy in general has improved,about the new paved roads,and running water where it used to not exist,about how almost ALL of the children in Iraq have been inoculated against childhood diseases,etc.

But,I realize that none of that counts to you.


That is such bullshit, the infrastructure in Iraq is worse than before we went in. Far worse.

Northern Iraq? You mean Kurdistan?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 01:30 am
Foxfyre wrote:
.....nor does that have anything to do with making money in the stock market with or without an advisor. But the current market is so favorable if somebody halfway knows what they are doing or does get good advice, you can't help but make money if you invest wisely in the market.


Sorry, but the facts completely contradict you.

Here is a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average under three Presidents. As you can see, performance under Bush 43 is hilariously inadequate compared to Bill Clinton-or even compared to Bush 41.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/DowJones3Pres.gif
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:46 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
.....nor does that have anything to do with making money in the stock market with or without an advisor. But the current market is so favorable if somebody halfway knows what they are doing or does get good advice, you can't help but make money if you invest wisely in the market.


Sorry, but the facts completely contradict you.

Here is a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average under three Presidents. As you can see, performance under Bush 43 is hilariously inadequate compared to Bill Clinton-or even compared to Bush 41.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/DowJones3Pres.gif


Where on that chart did 9/11 happen?


It's a rhetorical question, KW.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:54 am
Quote:
BASHING THE U.S. ARMY
Neil Boortz

When Democrat John Murtha called for an unconditional surrender to the Islamic terrorists on the main battlefield in the War On Terror, he was entitled to his opinion. Pursuing a policy such as that would be a complete disaster, but he said what he said. It looks like the majority of Democrats, at least in the House, also want to throw in the towel.

Well, yesterday, Murtha was at it again. Speaking to a group in his district in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, Murtha said that troops will leave Iraq in the next year because the Army is "broken, worn out and living hand to mouth." Such a vote of confidence!

So not only does Murtha want to admit defeat and leave the battlefield, now he wants to say that the troops will be leaving because they aren't up to the task. If you read between the lines, Congressman Al-Murtha is saying the war is lost because the troops have failed.

Consider for a moment what Murtha's comments might mean to the Islamic insurgency and Islamic terrorist factions around the world. The terrorists have been waging a campaign against American troops with roadside and car bombs. They will not confront our troops head-on. There have been no major battles, only minor skirmishes. Now Congressman Murtha has told the insurgents -- told the terrorists -- told Al Qaeda --- told the world that our American troops are worn out; worn out by roadside bombs. They're living hand-to-mouth, all because of this incredibly effective insurgency campaign! In other words, Murtha is telling all of those who might want us dead that our troops can't even handle a war without battles, a war without direct engagement. We can't even handle suicide bombers and roadside explosives! Way to go, Congressman Murtha.

He said he made a mistake when he voted for the war. Now that the going has gotten tough, he wants to give up. It's a good thing Murtha wasn't in Congress when some of our other wars were being fought. We wouldn't have made it past the first 3 years. But then Murtha criticized the president some more...saying that "Staying the course is not a policy." Huh?

Apparently not only is cutting and running the only way to go, actually staying and fighting is not even a viable alternative. With guys like Murtha running the show, we're never going to win the War On Terror. Hopefully people won't keep listening to this nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:56 am
Quote:
Pouting Pundits of Pessimism
Every bit of good economic news gives them reason for despair.


BY BRIAN S. WESBURY
Friday, December 2, 2005 12:01 a.m.

During a quarter century of analyzing and forecasting the economy, I have never seen anything like this. No matter what happens, no matter what data are released, no matter which way markets move, a pall of pessimism hangs over the economy.

It is amazing. Everything is negative. When bond yields rise, it is considered bad for the housing market and the consumer. But if bond yields fall and the yield curve narrows toward inversion, that is bad too, because an inverted yield curve could signal a recession.

If housing data weaken, as they did on Monday when existing home sales fell, well that is a sign of a bursting housing bubble. If housing data strengthen, as they did on Tuesday when new home sales rose, that is negative because the Fed may raise rates further. If foreigners buy our bonds, we are not saving for ourselves. If foreigners do not buy our bonds, interest rates could rise. If wages go up, inflation is coming. If wages go down, the economy is in trouble.

This onslaught of negative thinking is clearly having an impact. During the 2004 presidential campaign, when attacks on the economy were in full force, 36% of Americans thought we were in recession. One year later, even though unemployment has fallen from 5.5% to 5%, and real GDP has expanded by 3.7%, the number who think a recession is underway has climbed to 43%.

This is a real conundrum. It is true, bad things have happened. Katrina wiped out a major city and many people are still displaced. GM has announced massive layoffs. Underfunded pension plans are being handed off to the government. Oil, gasoline and natural gas prices have soared. Despite it all, the U.S. economy continues to flourish.

One would think that this would give pouting pundits reason to question their pessimism. After all, politicians who bounce back from scandal get monikers such as "the comeback kid." Athletes who overcome personal tragedy or sickness to achieve greatness are called "heroes." This is a quintessential American tradition, and the economy is following the script perfectly. The more hardship it faces, the more resilient it appears. The list of pessimistic forecasts that have been proved wrong grows by the day.

The trade deficit was supposed to cause a collapse in the dollar; but the dollar is up 10% versus the euro in the past eight months. The budget deficit was supposed to push up interest rates; yet the 10-year Treasury yield, at 4.5%, is well below its 2000 average yield of 6% when the U.S. faced surpluses as far as the eye could see.

Sharp declines in consumer confidence and rising oil prices were supposed to hurt retail sales; but holiday shopping is strong. Many fear that China is stealing our jobs, but new reports suggest that U.S. manufacturers are so strong that a shortage of skilled production workers has developed. And since the Fed started hiking interest rates 16 months ago, 3.5 million new jobs and $750 billion in additional personal income have been created. Stocks are also up, which according to pundits was unlikely as long as the Fed was hiking rates.

So, where is all of the pessimism coming from? Some say that the anxiety is warranted. The theory goes like this: Globalization and technology are a massive force that levels the playing field. Because capital and ideas can move freely around the world, foreign wages will move up, while U.S. wages fall, until some sort of equilibrium is found. It's a compelling story. After all, real average hourly earnings in the U.S. fell 1.6% during the 12 months ending in October.

However, there are numerous reasons to believe that this statistic is not giving an accurate picture of the economy's health. First, history shows that when oil prices rise sharply, real earnings take a temporary hit. As a result, a snapshot of inflation-adjusted earnings data in the wake of Katrina is misleading.

Moreover, for the past 30 years, real average hourly earnings have declined by an annual average of 0.1%. But this can't possibly reflect reality. In the past 30 years, cell phones and computers have become ubiquitous. Home and auto ownership have climbed. More people dine out; travel; attend sporting events, movies and rock concerts; and join health clubs. Over those same 30 years, real per capita consumption has increased at an average annual rate of 2.3%. Hourly earnings data do not include tips, bonuses, commissions or benefits, and therefore will always lag actual increases in living standards.

Some observers of the current economy, such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and former Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling, argue correctly that globalization is inevitable and, in fact, good. Nonetheless, they focus on those who are hurt by the transitional impact and suggest that government intervene to offset any damage from plant closures or job losses.

But this has never worked. The history of economic progress is one of innovation and change. This "creative destruction" can never be a pain-free experience for every individual involved. The new must replace the old. Attempting to alter this fact of life, and create a utopia where no one experiences pain, has always led to more unhappiness than before. Germany's near 11% unemployment rate and the recent riots in France are the latest evidence of government's inability to successfully fight market forces.

One key reason the U.S. economy has outperformed other industrialized nations, and exceeded its long-run average growth rate during the past two years, is the tax cut of 2003. By reducing taxes on investment, the U.S. boosted growth, which in turn created new jobs that replace those that are lost as the old economy dies. Ireland is also a beautiful example of the power of tax cuts to boost growth and lift living standards.

Economic growth is the only true shock absorber for an economy in transition. To minimize the pain of technological globalization and address the anxiety that these forces are creating, free-market policies must be followed. While tremendous pressures are building to increase government involvement in the economy, it is important that the U.S. stay the course that brought it out of recession.

To meet the challenges that lie ahead, a vibrant, flexible and expanding economy is absolutely necessary. While it is tempting to think that government programs are necessary to address anxiety, in reality only the free market can successfully navigate today's rough waters. In the end, it will be the private sector, not the public sector, that quells all this anxiety and creates the opportunities so many desire.

Mr. Wesbury is chief investment strategist with Claymore Advisors LLC.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:00 am
Ticomaya wrote:

Where on that chart did 9/11 happen?


It's a rhetorical question, KW.

It happened in the end of 2001, where you can spot it as a one-week kink. September 11 had no measurable impact on your economy's productive capacity, nor on consumer spending, beyond that kink.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:02 am
JustWonders wrote:
blatham wrote:
It is about manipulation. Everything I just posted is about manipulation. It is about falsifying the truth, hiding the truth, and getting you to think a certain way when you are minus the truth.

Of all the things that piss me off about you guys here to whom I am speaking the thing that tops the list is how utterly complacent you are - how happy you seem to be - being manipulated in such a manner.


Mr. b. - are you including the hawkish liberals in that "you guys" scenario?

You know, "those guys" that were the split-ticket voters who gave Bush at least 1 million, perhaps 2 million, of his 3 million-vote victory margin last November. Dismiss them, sir, at your peril.


I don't dismiss them. I count on them. You look into the wrong end of the telescope. It is precisely those swing voters who no longer trust Bush and his administration to be honest.

There IS clear peril here. Most immediately, it is to you, tico, foxfyre, and the others who will vote Republican no matter what facts the future reveals.

The majority of American citizens no longer trust Bush and his Republican administration to be honest (a steadily growing percentage). Subtract the 30 or so percentage that includes you guys who seem to support this administration regardless, and you then get a perspective on how deep your problem is.

The more general peril relates to the breadth of the techniques for manipulating public opinion that is evident in America, never moreso than presently and with the modern conservative movement. But equally perilous is your equanimity in the face of these propaganda tricks - some quite sophisticated but others baldly open and absolutely clear to view.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:17 am
Thomas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

Where on that chart did 9/11 happen?


It's a rhetorical question, KW.

It happened in the end of 2001, where you can spot it as a one-week kink. September 11 had no measurable impact on your economy's productive capacity, nor on consumer spending, beyond that kink.


You see that first big dip in the chart in 43's term? That's 9/11. It caused a drop in the GDP through 2003 of half a trillion (that's with a "t") dollars.

I'm interested in hearing more about your opinion that 9/11 had no long-term impact on our economy, or why you would not cite to that as the leading cause of the economic downturn during Bush 43's time in the chart.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:35 am
Ticomaya wrote:


A strong and robust economy is a disadvantage to the Democrats (and also explains why they continue to oppose freedom in the Middle East).

Mark Steyn, in a column last year, found it curious that while the economy was doing great, the Dems harped to anyone who'd listen that it wasn't.

They failed in that mission and now they're failing with their anti-Iraq strategy. Won't be long before they're totally irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:38 am
Ticomaya wrote:
You see that first big dip in the chart in 43's term? That's 9/11. It caused a drop in the GDP through 2003 of half a trillion (that's with a "t") dollars.

Depends on your definition of "big". The one that immediately followed 9/11 is about as big as the one in Clinton's term that coincided with the Levinsky hearings. They were both no big deal.

Ticomaya wrote:
I'm interested in hearing more about your opinion that 9/11 had no long-term impact on our economy, or why you would not cite to that as the leading cause of the economic downturn during Bush 43's time in the chart.

The output of the economy is determined by aggregate demand (aka consumer spending and investment spending) and aggregate supply (aka productivity and population growth). Neither of them changed much after 9/11. What did change at the end of Clinton's term, and in the beginning of Bush's, was the burst of the "new economy" bubble, leading to a brief recession, followed by a jobless expansion. You won't find a single economist, writing in any peer-reviewed publication, who attributes the half-a-trillion GDP shortfall to 9/11. That includes conservative economists.

I don't know if there's a consensus about what caused the big bump in the Dow Jones index that you see in 2002. My guess is that it's a rational investor response to the corporate scandals at Enron, WorldCom, and friends, which caused widespread doubts about the honesty of corporate accounting, but I haven't looked into it deep enough to defend this claim intelligently. In any case, you don't see a corresponding valley in America's 2002/2003 GDP.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:40 am
blatham wrote:
You look into the wrong end of the telescope.


Perhaps. The 'real' debate will be the 2006 election results. We'll see.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:03 am
Ticomaya wrote:

Where on that chart did 9/11 happen?

It's a rhetorical question, KW.


Rhetorical it may be, but you are getting an answer to it anyhow. And not the answer you are trying to imply is obvious. 9/11 was a one week dip-as you can see, the market rebounded immediately after it.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/DowJones3Pres911.gif

Ticomaya wrote:
You see that first big dip in the chart in 43's term? That's 9/11.

Wrong! That big dip, which ayou are trying to impoy is 9/11, came several months after 9/11 and AFTER the market had rebounded after 9/11.

As the chart clearly shows.

That big dip was not 9/11.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:07 am
How is that not the first big dip?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:11 am
9/11 was not a particularly big dip, and it was very, very short in duration.

The only really big dip is the one that came quite a few months later. And that dip most certainly was not 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:15 am
kelticwizard wrote:
9/11 was not a particularly big dip, and it was very, very short in duration.

As I said, one could argue that the Congress Republicans damaged the economy more during the Levinsky scandal than the terrorists did on 9/11.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:18 am
You hit the nail right on the head there, Thomas. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:19 am
Obvioously the market didn't fully rebound after 9/11 or else we wouoldn't have the second big dip which could be attributed to many things. Say the ongoing wars for example. I do believe that those wars are a direct result of 9/11.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:24 am
McGentrix wrote:
Obvioously the market didn't fully rebound after 9/11 or else we wouoldn't have the second big dip.......


It did fully rebound, as the chart clearly indicates. That big dip simply has nothing to do with 9/11, the slide came months and months later.

9/11 is the big thing the Bush people have going for them, and they are going to play it and play it whether there is any truth or logic there or not.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:28 am
McGentrix wrote:
Obvioously the market didn't fully rebound after 9/11 or else we wouoldn't have the second big dip which could be attributed to many things. Say the ongoing wars for example. I do believe that those wars are a direct result of 9/11.

Actually the immediate effect of the war was slightly stimulative. Kind of like the military Keynsianism of the 1940s, only several sizes smaller. I think a better argument for your side is that the dotcom boom in Clinton's second term wasn't real, so its bust shouldn't be blamed on Bush. Anyway, kelticwizards point was to debunk Foxfyre's indication that Bush is responsible for an expecially good stock market. Keltic's chart is easily enough to show that there is no especially good stock market to attribute to him.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:28 am
JustWonders wrote:
blatham wrote:
You look into the wrong end of the telescope.


Perhaps. The 'real' debate will be the 2006 election results. We'll see.


And 2008. The problems up the road are many and some are very big. I would not want to be part of any administration three years from now.

I suppose that sounds awfully negative, but I actually love your country for the most part.

But unless the machinations of power here revert to something more democratic than they have become - the secrecy of internal operations, the increasing rejection of balanced and competing powers, the sophistication of state-directed propaganda techniques and outlets, the demonization of political criticism, the growing concentration of wealth and power, the deeply anti-libertarian aspects of patriot act type legislation with corresponding privacy-invading technologies - then you could very easily walk right into a level of totalitarian society which would be counter to all your best values and traditions and hopes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.89 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 06:32:01