DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN

by Amazing 69 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Okay Messenger: Let's take another look at this.

    CLINTON YEARS

    peace: - not really when you consider Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, and of course his missile in Bin Laden's back yard. Then continued air raids into Iraq. Peace?

    booming stock market: Started in the Reagan years with lower taxes, stopped in Bush Sr. years with Democrat Tax increase, and then resumed again when GOP takes control of Congress in 1994. The economy was already getting weak before the 2000 election, but these extreme events recently have greatly hurt. Not caused by Bush.

    cheap gas: A function of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Etc. When they raise prices and/or cut production, the west feels it. Gas prices are not determined by American Presidents.

    The recent raise in gas prices is the result of OPEC increases back in November. It takes about 6 months for inventory backlog to catch up with the consumer market. And I understand that OPEC is going to keep oil prices under control, so we should see prices stay stable or reduce.

    low interest rates: Interest rates are not a function of American President. Other wise, I would love to credit Ronald Reagan for bringing mortgage interest rates down from the 12% to 16% rate of the Carter years. Interest rates are a function of investment, specificly, foreign investors who have flooded the USA with capital because the Pacific Rim nations have been havaing serious economic trouble that erodes capital. The Fed Reserve rates don't really affect mortgage rates that much, as they are mostly governing overnight bank rates, and business loan prime rates. Greenspan was a GOP appointee maintained by Clinton.

    BUSH 8 MONTHS:

    crashing stock market: Foreign investors are pulling their money out because of fears of war, started by maniacs, and not by Bush.

    highest gas prices in history: In addition to the above explanation, I need to add that gas prices are about where they should be. In the late 1950s, you could by a house for about $9,000. Gas was about 9 cents/gal. Today the average house is between $180,000 and $250,000 depending of region. At the same rate of inflation, gas should be between $1.80 and $2,50. In the Chicago metro area it is $1.82. About on target. So, adjusted for inflation, gas prices are "not" at historical levels.

    threshold of World War III: Bullshit No one in their right mind fears this. This is a quazi military-police action backed by most all civilized nations. Again, Bush is not responsible for this. It could have happened on Clinton's watch.

    low interest rates (just wait): Interest rates continue to drop, and should remain stable.

    Your final comment, "If Bush is such a damn genius, and if he has such smart people around him then why the above?"

    The problem is not George Bush, but events not in his control. My above explainations help show this. Too many Americans have the false notion that American Presidents are the main cause and effect for the country. As I tried to show in earlier posts gone by, it is the Congress that mainly affects us, and the last time I checked, the GOP dominated things during Clinton years, and we did not have any serious problems during Bush 8 months until the Senate shifted to Democrat control. But even this connection is not totally relevant. The problems have been there a long time, and came to a head last Tuesday.

    Too many Americans need a good civics class to understand how the government works, and to stop placing so much weight on a single office.

    You noted, "How do you come up with such blind thinking? You might compare it to the Reagan lovers who say he was the greatest president. I remember more farmers losing their land than at any time in American history not to mention the interest rates and other measures that plunged the country into debt that has yet to be paid."

    Reagan influenced a very conservative, though still Democrat controlled Congress, to lowert taxes. They did, but they did not lower spending. So the increased revenues from a booming economy went right back into big Democrat spending - a Congress that became more Liberal in subsequent elections. The debt was the decision of Congress. Reagan failed to veto this, but went along with Congress while he had a war of words.

    Reagan's greatness was the restoration of a certain character to the Presidency that was missing since Kennedy's time. He was great at foreign policy, especially in working with the Soviets who started thawing out from communism. He had the right ideas and implimented what he could. His failure was in relaxing his vigilance, and allowing spending without a bigger fight. But, ultimately Congress is the responsible body in this, especially the House of Representatives which controls the money.

    ou conlcuded: "Everyone has a right to an opinion. My opinion is Bush is a twit. As far as the future is concerned, be afraid, very afraid."

    You make my point perfectly. You actually endorse fear, and you allege things about Bush that are not rational or in line with how government works, and you do not provide any evidence of Bush being a Twit. Pure unsubstantiated claims.

    Look, if anyone can provide clear evidence, absent the rhetoric, of Bush being a Twit, or unqualified, or poorly educated, etc. then I will be more than willing to admit error. Amazing

  • Utopian Reformist
    Utopian Reformist

    Sorry Startling One!

    I have to disagree with you here, unfortunately. Call it fear, call it panic, but everyone on the planet is concerned about GW's abilities, and lack thereof.

    No wonder people are pulling out. He is not respected or taken seriously, yet.

    "Ave Mundi - Morituri te Salutamus!"

  • Seeker
    Seeker
    Reagan influenced a very conservative, though still Democrat controlled Congress, to lowert taxes. They did, but they did not lower spending. So the increased revenues from a booming economy went right back into big Democrat spending - a Congress that became more Liberal in subsequent elections. The debt was the decision of Congress. Reagan failed to veto this, but went along with Congress while he had a war of words.

    Uh, no, that isn't quite fair either, Amazing. Yes, Congress spent (that's what politicians do -- all of 'em -- occupational hazard). But Reagan rode into office espousing "voodoo economics" (George Bush's words, not mine) whereby he wanted a massive tax cut along with massive military buildup. He got both, and the economy had a party for a while (parties are fun in the short term), and then had a hangover from all that debt (how most parties turned out).

    It's not fair to pin the blame solely on the Democrats for spending when it was Reagan himself who was pushing for massive spending in areas he liked.

    Look, if anyone can provide clear evidence, absent the rhetoric, of Bush being a Twit, or unqualified, or poorly educated, etc. then I will be more than willing to admit error.

    I already did, and you ignored it. Can you think of anything more idiotic than to announce you are "going to rid the world of evil-doers"?

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi UR: Yes, foreign investors are pulling some funds for sure, but not because they distrust Bush, but because they are investors who want to move money to investments that will bring a return.

    If an investor has airline stock, he does not sit down and say, 'Oh my, George Bush made a syntax grammar mistake, so that dummy might screw with my investment.' Rather, the investor says, 'Wow, people are afraid to fly because of these religious nuts. Loss of profits are virtually assured. So, I will sell my airline stock and by defense stocks in makers of tanks and bullets, and place some in other non-USA markets.'

    Foreign investors, fearing a long and protracted war will move much of their money to European markets, like Germany, UK, or France, or simply buy gold bullion, and hold tight as a hedge against inflation. This happened during WWII, Korean War, Viet Nam War, Persian Gulf War in various degrees. Our economy sufferred greatly by the war in Viet Nam stared with Eisenhower (GOP) as an advisory role, but then escalated by Kennedy and Johnson (Democrats) and then finally ended by Nixon (GOP). Carter inherited an economy hurt by the rise in oil (OPEC) and years of war. Reagan was able to help solve some of the problem with a cooperative Congress.

    You can disagree all you wish, and hold to your fears. Fear is very hard to shake. Admittedly, my fears of Liberal Socialists wanting communism are still with me even years after the Soviet Union failed.

    Amazing

  • Utopian Reformist
    Utopian Reformist

    Hey AMAZING:

    I agree with your dissection of my comments, but need to further qualify them a bit. While it is true that no leader makes decisions based on another leader's grammar, it is the known presidential factor on the economy that makes other leaders nervous.

    An inept and incompetent person will make and cause others to make incorrect decisions, which cause crisis in different arenas of government.

    "Ave Mundi - Morituri te Salutamus!"

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Seeker: Okay,I will respond for now, then I must get back to work.

    You said regarding Reagan, "Congress spent (that's what politicians do -- all of 'em -- occupational hazard). But Reagan rode into office espousing "voodoo economics" (George Bush's words, not mine) whereby he wanted a massive tax cut along with massive military buildup. He got both, and the economy had a party for a while (parties are fun in the short term), and then had a hangover from all that debt (how most parties turned out)."

    The terms Voodo Economics was actually started by Ted Kennedy and Bush picked up on it during the Primary campaign against Reagan. The term the Party is Over is a Democrat term that Clinton used. I have no use for usch political rhetoric as they tend to blind the emotions when trying to have objective discussion.

    You continued, "It's not fair to pin the blame solely on the Democrats for spending when it was Reagan himself who was pushing for massive spending in areas he liked."

    Yes, I admit that Reagan wanted to rebuild the military after years of neglect. Although to be fair to Carter, the nations had been very tired of military during the Viet Nam era ended by Nixon. But, the spending went far beyond increased military funding, and into excessive social programs. I already admitted that Reagan did not fight hard enough to Veto spending. he did fight for the Line-Item-Veto that he enjoyed a Governor of California (where is did a great deal of good for that State), and Clinton also picked up this fight for the LIV, but the Supremes have not accepted it as Constitutional.

    You evidence of Bush being unqualified, "I already did, and you ignored it. Can you think of anything more idiotic than to announce you are "going to rid the world of evil-doers"?"

    I did not ignore it. But I understand political rhetoric. Democrat Lyndon Johnson started the War on Poverty and Great Society Programs to end poverty. No one really expects that it will be perfect but the rhetoric is said for focus and resolve, and not to be taken so literally. Reagan started the War on Drugs. Clinton started the War on ... mmmmm ... well ... for another time.

    No one expects Bush or anyone to end all evildoers, but the focus is good. Set your goals high is a mark of those who succeed great things, even if the perfect goal cannot eb achieved.

    So, to take some political rethoric and turn it into evidence of being poorly educated, poor intelligence, or lacking qaulifications is ludricrus. Were that the case, you could lift alomst any political sttement anytime and judge any politican as being low on the evolutionary food chain.

    Democrat Dick Gebhardt: "The Republicans want to starve the Children of America." (I will have to find the exact quote, but that is close.) He, Gebhardt, even went to a local grade school with the media and laid this on the children and got the kids to ask Congress on TV not to take food out of their mouths. What bullshit tactics!

    This was said in response to the GOP House sometime in 1996 regarding the School Food Lunch programs where the GOP increased funding, but gave States flexibility in how to administer it. But Gebhardt used this to lever political rhetoric in an utterly absurd fashion, and by this standard is an idiot. But as seen from what goes on on Capitol Hill, such rhetoric is normal to all politicians.

    So judging Bush on this basis is to ask him to stop being President and a politician. I did not ignore your evidence, but I do not find it adequate to convict. - Amazing

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi UR: You noted, "An inept and incompetent person will make and cause others to make incorrect decisions, which cause crisis in different arenas of government."

    Good point. All the more reason for wise investors to know and understand government and thus what rhetoric to listen to what what rhetoric to ignore. And maybe this is where we can take a closer look to see what substantive things Bush says that can be taken seriously by investors that would cause them to move money in a way that would hurt the economy. So far, from what I have seen, Bush has been doing well in keeping a calm and stable environment. But this deserves watching. Thanks again. - Amazing

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    You miss the point, Amazing. What Bush said wasn't just political rhetoric, it was idiotic political rhetoric. The fact that he didn't even realize how dumb a thing it was to say tells me, yet again, how dumb Bush is. "Evil" is a religious concept, "evil-doing" something that is fairly common in the world, according to religious teaching. We are all sinners, the root cause of evil in the first place. He can't possibly come close to even reducing evil-doing in the world.

    It would have been mere political rhetoric if he had promised to rid the world of terrorists. That is undoable, but a nice goal. To claim to rid the world of evil-doers is laughable. Yet he doesn't seem to realize how stupid it was to say.

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    Amazing,

    I know you won't be able to respond right away, so let me just say that I don't want to get into a full-blown political argument here. I responded to messenger's comments and your comments only because I wanted balance shown. It's never one side's entire fault, and it's never the case that the other side is all sweetness and light. Politics is dirty, and full of lies and misdirection. Blame usually belongs on both sides. The only quibbling should be how much each side gets this time.

    As for Bush, I think a fair question to ask is if anyone can point to any evidence of intelligence. I can dig up a dozen quotes, even from his bitterest political enemies, that Clinton was a smart man (whatever else he may have been beside that). Can anyone find such quotes about Bush?

  • DannyBear
    DannyBear

    Seeker,

    You never cease to amaze me. You claim unabashed that you are intellegent, yet you make statements as if written by in stone because you say so. Well sir, you have no corner on absolute truth.

    Secondly when anyone on almost any subject, take a stand, and clearly indicates it is what they believe, you for some reason, have to generalize that belief, by indicating there are 'two sides to everything', gee thanks Seeker, as if we do not understand a basic tenant of human nature.

    What bother's and disturbes me, is this open, magnanomous spirit you seem to champion. I can't really remember you ever taking a definite stand on any subject. It must be nice to just go wherever the wind takes you today. The real world would be in utter confusion, with no firm direction or laws, if everyone adopted your philosophy.

    Your willing to let people malign, call you abusive names, your willing to overlook anyone and everyones faults, you want to take the side of anyone that appears to be a victim of decision maker's. You want to be good to anyone, no matter who. You want American's now to think about terrorists, in this broad all encompasing way, you want us to generalize. You want us to forget about this little event WTC. You want us to think on some grandiose plain, well it may sound good to your ear's and to a personal slanted view of what should be, but the real world isn't that way.

    I would be hard pressed to rely on your concepts, to give any kind of leadership, in a crisis situation. I would not want anyone with your view of the world, standing next to me under attack. I would have no confidence that you would act swift, to defend me, or to carry out the will of the majority. Sometimes the majority wins Seeker. Sometimes individuals sacrifice their own personal will, to fulfill a duty to the majority.

    I should think you are always in a state of flux, never knowing what your real beliefs are, just open to whatever sounds the least offensive.

    Danny

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit