Bush's Campaign Platform...


I mean he is the only president in our nation’s history to create a deficit in the employment (of 2.7 million jobs to be exact) during his tenure in office. No Democrat could match that feat of economic management.

that is overflow from the previous president. the financial situation of the first term of every president is due to this. economists have always said it takes about 3-6 years apprx. for most economical impacts of a law/spending pattern to take effect (guess who watches news networks).
most of the failures of the current economy have no direct connection to either clinton or bush. the stock appraisers turned a blind eye to the over valueing of stocks and the ‘boiler room’ situations that went on during the boom. higher value=more money=more spending by companies that had no way of recovering this money plus enron and worldcom ect.(no explanasion needed,right?). all this came ‘to be corrected’ at about the same time. companies went under, 401k’s went flat, unempoyment spiked.

Sergius could you please tell us what Bush did exactly to create such a rise in unemployment?

I’ll just give some snippets in answer.
After the 9/11 fallout he gave subsidies to airlines that were already falling out, thus wasting money.
He gave subsidies to large scale farmers, who then put smaller one’s out of business.
He used the ‘fast-track’ economic treaty to make deals with other countries for importing products without the approval of the Senate so as to undercut American enterprise.
He cut taxes on stock dividends which thus lowered the amount of money going to the states which did not help the states’ fiscal crisis.
The president allowed Haliburton and Becthel each to have 1 billion dollar plus contracts in Iraq without letting any other companies bid for the deals as our Pentagon rules.
In the first tax cut he set up a branching set of rules for small businesses to get refunds thus numerous businesses although technically entitled to a larger tax cut, were not in any way allowed to receive it and lost money.
He kept the American markets sour by leaving the country on the verge of war for months and months–the uncertainty of which hurt the markets profoundly.
Theny of course when the war kicked in only two companies were in line to profit from it.
And now you know, but still won’t believe the rest of the story.

And if Bush inherited the slump, why didn’t he do anything to reverse it? Bad luck is no excuse as Hoover is proof. Oh yes, Bush just passed Hoover this summer for most amount of jobs lost during stay in office. Note, Hoover was president during the Depression.

Good night.

Sergius please do some thinking before posting a list like that.

Before I even read very far into it I noticed something TOTALLY obvious that is just crap, and that is the complaints about taxes.

President’s only SIGN BILLS, they dont write them, congress does that. And the bills the president signs in regards to taxes are FEDERAL, meaning only affecting FEDERAL laws, not state. IE federal taxes, not state taxes.

Nothing the president signs regarding taxes is a direct link to state taxes, he doesn’t have the power to change their rates, that is the job of the state congress and governor.

Now, with that said, of course many states base their income taxes off the federal program, but they still have different calculations for many deductions and business exemptions/writeoffs. I know because I’m a small business owner myself.

So complaining about states “losing” money because the president signs a tax bill is a waste of time. It’s not his job nor his worry.

As far as unemployment, a lot of that is a factor in the tech industry and also in every other industry that is farming out jobs overseas as fast as they can. Not much a president can do to stop that aside from pushing for more laws to be written that attempt to isolate us. If you read history you will realize the USA tried isolationism back in the time between the world wars and it didnt work out too well…

The view is always better from the left.

I am on vacation, and trying not to post, but here I am again. Oh well.

I think Bush is doing a good job. I do have problems with him though. I also agree that he should have gone to war with Iraq sooner instead of stretching things out. Then again I don’t have any knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes and don’t know what was secretly being done.

As far as blaming Bush for the economy, it is nice to say the economy was like that before he became president, and now it is like this, so he did it. Then again I have heard people try to blame Bush for the 9-11 attack.

But it is too easy to think in a vacuum, but we don’t live in a vacuum. The economy was moving up before the attack, and if you don’t think that had an effect then you are foolish. The attack was supposed to destroy our economy, and I think we did pretty good considering.

The Airline industry was hit hard, and the government forced them to shut down, so they did deserve something to keep them afloat. Though some think we were too generous because they were defiantly screwing up. Then again we have no idea if they would have pulled themselves out on their own, because they were not given a chance. They were running on such a tight budget that the short time closed was devastating to the industry.

Now if Bush had just let them fail, you probably would be complaining that he caused more unemployment by letting some airlines go under. And you would be complaining about the few remaining airlines becoming monopolies.

I don’t think we should be giving subsidies to farmers without good reason. You would not believe the laws that protect the family farm. Many of the “big” farms are still considered family farms, working on loopholes.

I keep hearing about how terrible farming is, and people keep trying to keep these people in the farming business. Also people don’t realize that the reason it is hard for the family farmer is because of their success. Food is abundant, and this keeps food prices low. The best way for family farms to succeed is for food prices to jump, and that will hurt a lot more people. Maybe reducing the number of family farms drop, and letting big business increase how many farm they run might be better for the consumer. Cheaper food would make life easier for millions if not billions. But this is not what you want to hear.

Then again I have heard about some wealthy farming families. Many farms fail because the farmer just isn’t good at business. I could see a business existing just to assist the family farm by teaching advanced business practices, and getting the farms to work together to make their farms not only more productive, but to help various farms decide together what they plant so a lot of farms don’t plant the same thing producing a glut in certain products, and a shortage in others. The again I am not a farmer, and don’t know if this exists.

As far as unemployment, May 1975 - 9% unemployment. November and December 1982 ? 10.8% unemployment. Ever look at an unemployment chart? It is not a straight line. It goes up and it goes down, then it goes back up, then it goes back down. Nothing about the economy and unemployment has surprised me since the attacks. The rest of this year you will see improvements, and even more next year. The wild card will be the energy prices.

Now as far as the number of jobs lost, you could also say compared to Hoover, he has many more people employed then Hoover. This is called “lying with statistics.” A good example would be the 1929 crash. The total point drop then has been beaten in a week in a gain and a loss. But if you adjust the market for current dollars then it has not been beaten. You made no such adjustment in your analysis. The same problem occurs with the record industry. A gold or platinum record use to mean something, but now if you don?t get at least a gold record then you are a failure as a recording artist.

In 1930 the population was 117 million in the US, but now it is estimated at 291 million. You also don’t seem to take into account the fact that women didn’t really work back then, but for the most part do now. That would be an increase of roughly 4 times to the workforce by taking into account the population increase and the introduction of women into the workforce. The 30’s saw an increase of unemployment to 25%. July was 6.2%, and this is not that bad. I don’t see tons of people on the streets (sober), nor people really struggling. I see people complain about the economy, while dining out, and then get into their new car.

Lets get a little reality to this. Also it is important to realize that the government does not have as great an influence on the economy as everybody thinks. The biggest effect it has is just to get in the way, and slow progress down. Not to mention all the idiots that actually believe that an increase in taxes is good for the economy, and yet I have never found a single person who could explain this to me. (Ok, I am getting off topic.)

If the unemployment rate drops by 1.2% (which it could easily do over the next year) you will see the government increasing interest rates because anything below 4% is considered inflationary, although I think that is somewhat foolish. The government tries too hard to slow a good economy.

Just realize that the economy does not move in a straight line. I expect at least a half dozen recessions over the next 40 years. This is just a fact of life, and the people hurt the most are the ones who didn’t prepare. This is a lesson I had to learn myself.

Oh yeah, I don’t think Hoover can be blamed for the Depression.

As Bush is president of the nation he is leader of the economy. As the federal government can regulate interstate commerce state economies should be on his priorities as well.
The first tax cut was supposed to put money back into the economy. Rather it took it out. Because botht the president and John Snow verily scared the people into thinking the economy was poor. The average joe who got his refund didn’t invest it in the economy but saved it, doing good for no one. Especially not the companies that could have used the money at the time. So they compensated, by cutting jobs.
The simple fact is that after the second tax was introduced and then passed and put into effect, states lost money. Not being able to tax companies as much created a revenue drain. And if anyone has been watching the news recently, states are cutting jobs everywhere.
When you have your own secretary of treasury saying the economy sucks, you know you are in bad.

Even if somebody just saves their money in a bank they are contributing to the economy. That money is then loaned out to people who need it to buy houses, cars, etc. try again.

Also, if you are unemployed it is nobodys fault but your own. If you have skills that somebody needs then you will have a job. If you dont have skills then you wont get hired. How many unemployed doctors, lawyers, or teachers do you know?

Bush sucks.

Can’t stand a man with Christian values.

And that stupid-assed tax refund? Sent the entire $1,200 back to the government. What the hell was he trying to prove?

kicks back on his new patio furniture (bought with the refund, pumping money back into the economy) to finish his cup of coffee and the morning paper, before he wakes up the girls who are still asleep in their new bunk bed (bought with the refund, pumping money back into the economy).

Yep, 'ole dubya is sure an asshole.

"Not being able to tax companies as much created a revenue drain. And if anyone has been watching the news recently, states are cutting jobs everywhere. "

Have you had basic civics courses yet sergius? I’m still wondering how federal tax cuts creates a state tax revenue drain. Still want to know.

As far as states cutting jobs, it’s because they overgambled on the stock market themselves. They all banked on earning 10% returns on their investments, and when the returns dropped down to 5%, it hammered their projected revenues.
Problem is govt’s have been increasing their budgets by 5-20% annually, and there is no way to sustain that sort of growth without bloated money market projections. Real people know they dont get annual raises like that every year, yet politicians keep writing budgets with huge increases every single year.
Now that the cows have finally come home, they are in a pickle.

First off, the tax cuts made it so that NO ONE could tax both a company and said company’s stock dividens, neither state nor federal.
Now I know some of you may be living before the Civil War but federal law over arches over state. Therefore the states could not perform the so said “double tax” on businesses.
Oh, and working for the state government I happen to know first hand that the states can only invest visa vi their retirement programs and health programs.
Yes those went down the shitter.
But the reason states are doing terribly are because of the terrible economy, losing money from the tax cut (see above) and the fact that there is a gridlock in the government. Dems and Reps won’t come to agreement in the state capitol, and the governor won’t come to agreement with the state legislature.
In Ohio, the legislature voided itself from receiving No Child Left Behind money because it couldn’t hammer out an education plan in time.
I’m sure it’s happening in your state too–just change the channel from Fox News and you’ll see what’s happening.

you sure the states arent doing bad because they cant control their spending?

I know Oregon is in trouble because it didn’t take in enough money. It’s the only state without a statewide sales tax. It’s schools had to close three or four weeks early because of a lack of resources.

Currently most states haven’t even decided what to spend and what to cut.
Part of the problem is that with issues like No Child Left Behind, many states are actually LOSING money to get funding fromt he government. nytimes had a good piece on it yesterday talking about the suffering school systems nationwide.

Warren Buffet “If this is class warfare, then my class is winning”.

I’m not up on all the economic intricacies but most knowledgable analysts I’ve read have stated how terrible this administration has been.

What I know is that the gap between rich & not-rich is widening at an ever faster pace (sure that goes back through the Clinton years).

Median home price in my city is 400K, yet there are many public school students who only get one good meal a day provided at an after-school meal program (all donated), because neither the schools nor their parents can afford it.

Yeah Teachers aren’t out of work- their now janitors where they used to teach.

Something is rotten.

Oregon is not the only state without a statewide sales tax. Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon are the five states that currently do not impose general sales taxes at the state level. Try again.

Whether you have property, sales, income, excise, or other taxes it’s about collecting money. Every state has a different mix of how they accomplish this and some work better in a bad economy than others. Oregon is a relatively liberal state when it comes to social spending but they don’t have the tax structure to match their champagne tastes. I’m sure they’ll straighten it out.

GW isn’t my favorite guy but he’s not doing as badly as his detractors would have you believe. The same was true with Clinton, or any other President in the last couple of decades. People tend to try and plump up their case with things that sound good for a second but fall apart under closer examination.

If you don’t tax a company heavily they have more money. People get laid off when a company has less money than it needs. It stands to reason a company that isn’t supporting so many government employees with it’s taxes can support more of it’s own.

Helping the airlines with a one time subsidy saved jobs, yet it’s used in the case against GW for causing unemployment. Logical? Fuck no.

Bechtel was a guy once, it’s a corporation now. The same is probably true for Halliburton. The bidding might have been nonexistant but the contracts provided jobs for the employees of those corporations. Again, this had nothing to do with an unemployment problem since jobs were provided, just maybe not to the the “right” major capitalist pig corporation. What do the people bitching about this think is going to happen? A bunch of homeless bums or old hippies are going to get the contract to rebuild pipelines, water systems, bridges, and power generation and transmission systems? Those aren’t things that Joe’s Little Construction Company can even hope to win the bid on anyway.

We need to do more to penalize companies for exporting jobs. I think taxing the shit out of them for that is a good start. I think something needs to be done to CEOs that get $million bonuses (Phil Condit from Boeing is a good example) when their corporation is laying people off and whining about losing contracts. I don’t know what we could do legally but rolling him up in a blanket and beating him with rubber hoses would be a good start.

Who’s with me?!

The problem with Halliburton and Becthel is that these corporations aren’t being paid to do anything. Most of the money is coming from signing bonuses.
If a real company were to come in and take the job they’d be hiring more workers to rebuild the Iraqi pipelines. Haliburton and Bechtel, as a washingtonpost aritcle a couple days ago noted aren’t doing anything but they are continuing to collect.
I have no problem with money being spread around, but when it only hits the top, I am displeased.

As for companies exporting jobs, what about America continually importing products? As I noted the ‘fast-track’ treaty agreement process is one of the worst abominations of US foreign and economic policy. It takes away the need for Senate approval.
So far it has been used with Taiwan, Thailan and numerous African nations for the importation of manufactured goods. Way to create jobs…in Asia and Africa.

Yes the execs at big companies need to be put in their place. The unions at United Airlines did a good job of doing that while taking power.
As for taxing the rich, the IRS has noted that they are going to spend less time looking into tax shelters and high end tax fraud, while they are going to be looking into tax cheats in the lowest income bracket.
Where the hell is the reasoning in that?

"I think something needs to be done to CEOs that get $million bonuses (Phil Condit from Boeing is a good example) when their corporation is laying people off and whining about losing contracts. I don’t know what we could do legally but rolling him up in a blanket and beating him with rubber hoses would be a good start. "

This is bullshit. Something needs to be done but by the companies, not by the government. somebody needs to stand up, be a man, and say this shit aint right. Put out a superior product, charge a decent price, and then everyone will have to fall in line because everyone will want to deal with them.

Gold–who should step up? Step up like the Enron whistle blowers who got canned?

I’m not saying taxing the rich will keep them in line, but there is a reason there are no pure market economies, because they will not regulate themselves.

Look at the industrial revolution, or look at the Robber Barons there was no government regulation then. We can’t let that happen again (well actually it kinda did when the regulators in California stepped down and let the power companies continually mouth rape the people until they had to get their stomachs pumped)