Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush outspends the Liberals,is Pro-Amnesty and gets us in a expensive,pointless war
So i wouldnt say im a fan.that said most of the economic problems cant be blamed on Him.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by happycamper5
Lets not forget to blame the nice folks who declared war on the U.S, by wiping out a whole zip code in the biggest city in the FREE world ! I [ me] think it is worth billions to let the world know ..WE WILL NOT TERRORIZED WITHOUT A FIGHT! I dont want to hear unjustified war ,paypack from bush sr, no threat to U,S ect.. WHY DOES EVERYBODY FORGET THAT CLINTON BOMBED IRAQ !! without UN approval...He tried to send the same message but bush just had to use a bigger megaphone!!!
And let's ALSO NOT FORGET that Iraq had NOTHING to do with "the nice folks who declared war on the U.S, by wiping out a whole zip code "
I agree, there's plenty of blame. I, for one, blame the boards of directors of these institutions. Charged with safeguarding these companies, they endorsed compensation packages for CEO's that were obscene, and effectively drained the company's resources. Moreover, the CEO's and upper level management weren't rewarded for quality work, but for quantity work. Like any hack mortgage salesmen, they wrote up paper and pushed it through without any cares about what would happen when notes came due, when interest rates rose, when shareholders and employees went broke. Even though they did nothing illegal, and who can blame the CEO's for taking easy money, it was wrong. And the boards should have had enough brains between them to see that.
His policies however do shape the momentum an economy can experience when moving from recession to growth. And these are areas I find deep flaws in his policy...
I rather love how you destroy your own argument with contradictions and fallacies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnymonty
#1- Weak Dollar Policy. Since 2000 the US dollar has fallen 39% against the Euro... especially since 2006 where 2/3's of the fall occured.
Bush wasn't president in 2000 and presidents do not have control over the Federal Reserve. Congress can negate any action the Federal Reserve takes, but that's a moot point, since the Federal Reserve cannot control demand for the US Dollar.
The US Dollar was strong only because better than 90% of world commodity trade was conducted in US Dollars, creating an artificial demand for the US Dollar which caused it to be artificially over-valued against other currencies.
With the emergence of the Euro, the US Dollar began declining in value long before the 2000 Election.
You specifically mention 2006. Well, no kidding since Russia stopped trading in US Dollars and started trading solely in Euros and Rubles.
You're totally oblivious to the fact that the US at a mere 4% of the world's population uses 29% of the world's non-oil resources. In doing so, the US is single-handedly denying other countries the ability to develop higher standards of living.
The question isn't "if" developing nations are going to play the role of economic-slave that the US would have them play, it's "when" are they going to stop playing the part.
It's in their best interest to abandon the US Dollar and switch to the Euro, Ruble, Yuan or basket currencies, to drive Cost Inflation in the US and force US consumers to reduce consumption, so that developing nations can consume those resources and at reasonable prices.
But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening. Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening. Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
2001 article....for the folks who only use left side of brain!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
