So... Does anybody still want to defend Bush's economic legacy?

[BenBurch]

I need some amusement this morning.

[corplinx]

I need some amusement this morning.

Try counting to 10. That seems to be an intellectual feat for you based on your past postings here.

[DavidJames]

Try counting to 10. That seems to be an intellectual feat for you based on your past postings here.I've read posts by both of you and my money is on Ben to finish ahead of you.

Yes I know, I'll finish a distant third, if I finish at all. :)

[Tailgater]

Which part?

[BPSCG]

Try counting to 10. That seems to be an intellectual feat for you based on your past postings here.:biggrin:

[Bunk]

He has a legacy? Must be a Subaru.

[Darth Rotor]

I need some amusement this morning.
1. Has someone already done so, or are you talking to imaginary people?

2. How can someone defend a legacy that has yet to be established? He still has a year to work on unscrewing what he spent the last six years screwing up. Not betting the over on him unscrewing much of anything.

DR

[PAC]

I need some amusement this morning.

The boys at "the club" seem to like what he's done for them!

[Loss Leader]

I'll say this about GWB's effect on the economy: He made Ronald Reagan look like a genius. I, for one, never thought it could be done.


I can count to ten with moderate prompting.

[Wowbagger]

He has provided more textbook cases of how not to develop an economic policy, than most other U.S. leaders.




(Well, someone's got to do that!)

[articulett]

Sometimes you have to reach bottom before you crawl out of the mire.

His failures galvanize the opposition. You can tell who the the loyalty cult members are by the fact that they still support him (or insult his critics to make others think the stench comes from the critics rather than Bush and his asskissers.)

[BenBurch]

Hate to say it, but "told you so."

I was working against George since he announced for the Presidency in '98 because I already had heard PLENTY about him.

I really do think he is the stupidest, most feckless man to have ever held the office, and that is going some.

[Texas]

I need some amusement this morning.

Do you mean that he failed to suspend the business cycle?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
2. How can someone defend a legacy that has yet to be established? ...
DRHahahahahahahahahahah... That's a good one. Are you suggesting some miracle is going to change Bush's legacy from the worst President in US history to something else?

[Texas]

Hahahahahahahahahahah... That's a good one. Are you suggesting some miracle is going to change Bush's legacy from the worst President in US history to something else?


Well so far his legacy has been to drive congressional Democrats absolutely insane in their efforts to bring him down. You may want to ask what legacy this congress will leave. It is suffering an approval rating , the last I looked, half of that of Bush.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you mean that he failed to suspend the business cycle?The business cycle? Do you think oil would be $100/barrel yet had Bush not invaded Iraq? Think taking the lessons in Friedman economics not learned from the Pinochet and Argentina military rule eras of the disappeared and tortured citizens of those countries helped the situation in Iraq when Bush sent in Brenner to remake the country using the same model had no effect on those $100 barrel oil prices? Do you think our billions of tax dollars sent off in sacks of cash to be looted by Bush cronies and anyone else lucky enough to be in on the take were good value? Think the Haliburton no-bid contracts and the sacking of New Orleans after Katrina helped our economy as much as it helped Bush and Cheney and their cronies turn their stock options and lucrative post government positions into instant wealth? Is that the business cycle you are referring to? If it is, you are a fool.

[Texas]

The business cycle? Do you think oil would be $100/barrel yet had Bush not invaded Iraq? Think taking the lessons in Friedman economics not learned from the Pinochet and Argentina military rule eras of the disappeared and tortured citizens of those countries helped the situation in Iraq when Bush sent in Brenner to remake the country using the same model had no effect on those $100 barrel oil prices? Do you think our billions of tax dollars sent off in sacks of cash to be looted by Bush cronies and anyone else lucky enough to be in on the take were good value? Think the Haliburton no-bid contracts and the sacking of New Orleans after Katrina helped our economy as much as it helped Bush and Cheney and their cronies turn their stock options and lucrative post government positions into instant wealth? Is that the business cycle you are referring to? If it is, you are a fool.


All I see are a lot of disjointed talking points. The only real point you made about economics is the 100 dollar per barrel of oil which today is 90 dollars but anyway.... yes oil is high due to the explosive growth of emerging market demand especially India and China. The rest of your post is just more of the same from frustrated liberals and democrats.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You would do well to read more, Tex. You are uninformed.

I recommend for a start you read,

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Kline (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book)

and

Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran (http://www.rajivc.com/)

[fuelair]

Hate to say it, but "told you so."

I was working against George since he announced for the Presidency in '98 because I already had heard PLENTY about him.

I really do think he is the stupidest, most feckless man to have ever held the office, and that is going some.
Your evaluation of Shrub is far too kind. And I notice you refer to it as a man.

[Texas]

You would do well to read more, Tex. You are uninformed.

I recommend for a start you read,

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Kline (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book)

and

Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran (http://www.rajivc.com/)

Why would I put any stock into a Canadian author that bills herself as anti-globalist? She is just another 30 something on a normal rant about the "evil corporations" and Capitalism with no education at all in economics. Having said that, I understand your frustration but, take heart Bush will be gone in one year and 2 days and then all will be well. As to the other link, I will try to see what I can find about the book and author.

[Texas]

Your evaluation of Shrub is far too kind. And I notice you refer to it as a man.

You REALLY don't like Bush do you?

[Trakar]

What did the market close at today 12159? What was it when he came into office?
What has been the term average fluctuation for the last several administrations?

[fuelair]

You REALLY don't like Bush do you?
Your perspicacity is a tribute to your upbringing and your education. I must admit to a wee trifle of disgust that he pollutes us with his presence.

[Texas]

What did the market close at today 12159? What was it when he came into office?
What has been the term average fluctuation for the last several administrations?

The Just a quick search shows that the Dow closed at about 9700 on March 15 2001. http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html. It took a big hit after 911 of almost 15%.

[Texas]

Your perspicacity is a tribute to your upbringing and your education. I must admit to a wee trifle of disgust that he pollutes us with his presence.
Being a dumb redneck from Texas I had to look up "perspicacity" just to make sure I hadn't been insulted. I'm still not sure but I'm still amused by the absolute rage at this president. Like I said earlier he will be gone in a year and all will be lollipops and gumdrops from there on so keep the faith.

[fishbob]

Tex - the man is an idiot.
A self-serving and not particularly competent idiot.

Go to the baseball stadium where the Rangers play.
Look at the big sign across the entrance (paid for with tax dollars), and tell me he is not an idiot.

[Texas]

Tex - the man is an idiot.
A self-serving and not particularly competent idiot.

Go to the baseball stadium where the Rangers play.
Look at the big sign across the entrance (paid for with tax dollars), and tell me he is not an idiot.


Then what does that make the democrats in congress? They sure as hell aren't beating this "idiot". He is the most successful "lame duck" I have ever seen.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would I put any stock into a Canadian author that bills herself as anti-globalist? She is just another 30 something on a normal rant about the "evil corporations" and Capitalism with no education at all in economics. Having said that, I understand your frustration but, take heart Bush will be gone in one year and 2 days and then all will be well. As to the other link, I will try to see what I can find about the book and author.Right, why bother looking into anything that disrupts your fantasy world.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tex - the man is an idiot.
A self-serving and not particularly competent idiot.

Go to the baseball stadium where the Rangers play.
Look at the big sign across the entrance (paid for with tax dollars), and tell me he is not an idiot.Somehow, I don't think I need to go anywhere to make an assessment that someone who is that much of a Bush apologist is anything else.

[Texas]

Right, why bother looking into anything that disrupts your fantasy world. Why would I ask a mechanic why my blood pressure is off the charts? She is a far left journalist that hates everything the United States stands for. I am twice her age and have more economics background than she does. I don't deal in fantasy that is her province.

[Texas]

Somehow, I don't think I need to go anywhere to make an assessment that someone who is that much of a Bush apologist is anything else.
I haven't apologized for Bush. I just love the irony that this moron is outsmarting the democratic geniuses in congress at every turn.

[corplinx]

Bush hasn't really had an economic policy. Neither did Clinton. Nor did Bush Sr. Nor did Reagan (cutting the marginal tax rates early on doesnt count as a continual policy).

President's don't really do that much for the economy, but they can do a lot against it.

So asking someone to defend Bush's economic policies is like asking someone to defend the celestial teapot. Not only is it a fool's errand, it exposes the person asking as a fool as well.

[Texas]

Bush hasn't really had an economic policy. Neither did Clinton. Nor did Bush Sr. Nor did Reagan (cutting the marginal tax rates early on doesnt count as a continual policy).

President's don't really do that much for the economy, but they can do a lot against it.

So asking someone to defend Bush's economic policies is like asking someone to defend the celestial teapot. Not only is it a fool's errand, it exposes the person asking as a fool as well.

Yeah but all presidents take credit for a good economy so it isn't unfair to give them hell for a bad one. The jury is still out on the present economic though. The futures are pointing to a big open tomorrow and the banks are finally coming clean so it could be close to the market bottom. I have lost a bundle this month but I'm not too worried....yet

[corplinx]

I remember the Savings and Loan recession. I remember the dot bomb recession. Now we are looking at slow economic growth with this housing and mortage bubble burst.

So in order, I blame Reagan (the Bush I recession actually began in 1987), Clinton, and Bush II for those economic slowdowns which they had no hand in.

[Texas]

I remember the Savings and Loan recession. I remember the dot bomb recession. Now we are looking at slow economic growth with this housing and mortage bubble burst.

So in order, I blame Reagan (the Bush I recession actually began in 1987), Clinton, and Bush II for those economic slowdowns which they had no hand in. There ya go. Ain't it great that they held a gun to all of our heads when the markets went down 20% and we didn't sell? I love personal responsibility. You are correct though. The sub-prime mortgages allowed a historical number of Americans to own their own homes. They were the result of decades of liberals saying that certain areas were "red-lined" out of the American dream. Well maybe there was a real, rational reason those areas were red-lined in the first place. Oh well, no good deed goes unpunished.

[Redtail]

There ya go. Ain't it great that they held a gun to all of our heads when the markets went down 20% and we didn't sell? I love personal responsibility. You are correct though. The sub-prime mortgages allowed a historical number of Americans to own their own homes. They were the result of decades of liberals saying that certain areas were "red-lined" out of the American dream. Well maybe there was a real, rational reason those areas were red-lined in the first place. Oh well, no good deed goes unpunished.

Yeah, I'm Black So I should never be allowed to live in those neighborhoods. Never mind my credit score, income, and assets...

[Texas]

Yeah, I'm Black So I should never be allowed to live in those neighborhoods. Never mind my credit score, income, and assets...
No, your FICO score, down payment and confirmed income should determine your ability to purchase a house. That is the way it worked for generations. Redlining is not a function of race it is a function of income and credit history for any demographic area. There are always exceptions to the rule but that does not mean the rule isn't sound. For every sub-prime borrower that was allowed to buy more house than they could afford and then defaulted there are a thousands of small investors that lost much of their retirement nest egg when he walked away.

[Redtail]

No, your FICO score, down payment and confirmed income should determine your ability to purchase a house. That is the way it worked for generations. Redlining is not a function of race it is a function of income and credit history for any demographic area. There are always exceptions to the rule but that does not mean the rule isn't sound. For every sub-prime borrower that was allowed to buy more house than they could afford and then defaulted there are a thousands of small investors that lost much of their retirement nest egg when he walked away.

You really think redlining does not and never had anything to do with race, age, religion, etc...?
Rare exceptions as you see them excluded of course.

[Texas]

You really think redlining does not and never had anything to do with race, age, religion, etc...?
Rare exceptions as you see them excluded of course.

Maybe you can give me some examples? I don't doubt your word but if you bring this debate down to race it will be a fruitless exercise. My point is that for generations the criteria for purchasing a home was a borrower that had established a record of paying their bills on time, an income that would allow them to make the principal and interest payments plus the property taxes plus the insurance required to cover the loss of the home. The advent of sub-prime loans violated all of those prerequisites of home ownership. There is absolutely NO doubt that for the last 20 years there has been a push to expand the opportunity of home ownership to people that cannot meet those prerequisites. There are more white wasps in that group than minorities and the results are where we are today. It led to the greatest number of "home owners" this country has ever known until they walked away from them.

[Redtail]

Maybe you can give me some examples? I don't doubt your word but if you bring this debate down to race it will be a fruitless exercise.

Well If I wanted to bring it down to "race" I wouldn't have included Age, religion, etc... I mentioned race because as far as redlining goes that would be the first strike against me should it be occurring.


My point is that for generations the criteria for purchasing a home was a borrower that had established a record of paying their bills on time, an income that would allow them to make the principal and interest payments plus the property taxes plus the insurance required to cover the loss of the home.

Right, and my question is, what makes you think that those were/are the only requirements?



The advent of sub-prime loans violated all of those prerequisites of home ownership. There is absolutely NO doubt that for the last 20 years there has been a push to expand the opportunity of home ownership to people that cannot meet those prerequisites.

Agreed, but where did the liberals make them do this? Could none of this been because of their greed and rolling the dice? If you think that then i invite you to go to college campuses and check out the 25%+ credit card kiosks. Granted, if a college student signs up and knows what he/she is doing that card can be a boon once they graduate but many don't know and they get burned. IMO the stupidity of both sides is equal and the same goes for mortgages.

There are more white wasps in that group than minorities and the results are where we are today. It led to the greatest number of "home owners" this country has ever known until they walked away from them.

I know there were more White wasps. Now imagine if they couldn't get a loan because of this mess. Bottom line, the term comes from a race, age, whatever, kind of discrimination. Thankfully it happens on a much, much, MUCH smaller scale that it did since the 30's. (IIRC that was the start of the practice although the term wasn't used until the mid-late 60's) In fact Shore bank grew in great part of redlining.

[Tailgater]

Do you think oil would be $100/barrel yet had Bush not invaded Iraq?

No, but it would still be close.

[pomeroo]

The business cycle? Do you think oil would be $100/barrel yet had Bush not invaded Iraq? Think taking the lessons in Friedman economics not learned from the Pinochet and Argentina military rule eras of the disappeared and tortured citizens of those countries helped the situation in Iraq when Bush sent in Brenner to remake the country using the same model had no effect on those $100 barrel oil prices? Do you think our billions of tax dollars sent off in sacks of cash to be looted by Bush cronies and anyone else lucky enough to be in on the take were good value? Think the Haliburton no-bid contracts and the sacking of New Orleans after Katrina helped our economy as much as it helped Bush and Cheney and their cronies turn their stock options and lucrative post government positions into instant wealth? Is that the business cycle you are referring to? If it is, you are a fool.


Yes, skeptigirl, you have drawn upon your vast knowledge of economics to put everything into perspective. It's amazing what can be learned by reading far-left blogs to the exclusion of everything else.

If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, China's economy, growing at the unimaginable rate of 20%, would not be gobbling up so much of the world's oil reserves. India's emergence as an economic giant would not have happened, either. The Halliburton no-bid contracts, although they have absolutely nothing to do with the current credit crunch, sound awfully bad. The voters of Louisiana were not tricked by the mythmakers and overwhelmingly elected a Republican governor, the principal villain of the Katrina fiasco (along with another Democrat, Ray Nagin), Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco, having decided against running for re-election. Still, why spoil a good yarn?

If you imagine that Bush was the President who used the office to office obtain enormous personal wealth, you are confusing him with his predecessor Bill Clinton, who set the bar for personal enrichment. Of course, you approve of Bill Clinton.

[pomeroo]

Bush hasn't really had an economic policy. Neither did Clinton. Nor did Bush Sr. Nor did Reagan (cutting the marginal tax rates early on doesnt count as a continual policy).

President's don't really do that much for the economy, but they can do a lot against it.

So asking someone to defend Bush's economic policies is like asking someone to defend the celestial teapot. Not only is it a fool's errand, it exposes the person asking as a fool as well.


An excellent post! Politicians don't affect world markets very much, at least not in beneficial ways. Bush's tax cuts provided a necessary stimulus to a market that had been hammered by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and and the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01. Clinton inherited an economy that had grown by 5% in the last quarter of 1992. He coasted until the bubble exploded. He had nothing to do with the good times and didn't cause the recession during which his second term ended.

If our economy does enter a recession, it will enhance Paul Krugman's status as a prophet. He has, after all, predicted nine of the last two.

[articulett]

I love this thread... because you can see the Bush apologists in big glaring details... and, guess what,... they tend to be creationists too! It's the same mind set. You know exactly whom to ignore because they are predictable, brainwashed, and get their "truth" from unreliable sources rather than from evidence.

Are there any Bush loyalists who are not creationists? Any that are not AGW deniers?
Are there any with Ann Coulters's aversion towards everything left of her politics who are more likable than her? More worth listening too? Are the only people who are coming to Bush's defense blowhards? There must be someone likable and intelligent who is a Bush apologist.

Ah well, woo of a feather....

It's nice to know whom to put on ignore. :)

[Lurker]

The Just a quick search shows that the Dow closed at about 9700 on March 15 2001. http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html. It took a big hit after 911 of almost 15%.

FYI, that translates into approximately 3.3% growth in the Dow per year under Bush. That is significantly below the average.

[corplinx]

It's nice to know whom to put on ignore. :)

Good point, you are now on ignore.

[pomeroo]

I love this thread... because you can see the Bush apologists in big glaring details... and, guess what,... they tend to be creationists too! It's the same mind set. You know exactly whom to ignore because they are predictable, brainwashed, and get their "truth" from unreliable sources rather than from evidence.

Are there any Bush loyalists who are not creationists? Any that are not AGW deniers?
Are there any with Ann Coulters's aversion towards everything left of her politics who are more likable than her? More worth listening too? Are the only people who are coming to Bush's defense blowhards? There must be someone likable and intelligent who is a Bush apologist.

Ah well, woo of a feather....

It's nice to know whom to put on ignore. :)


A brilliant refutation of the points I made! Imagine how well you'd do if you knew something.
Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podhoretz, and Christopher Hitchens will be fascinated to learn that they are creationists.

[ponderingturtle]

Hate to say it, but "told you so."

I was working against George since he announced for the Presidency in '98 because I already had heard PLENTY about him.

I really do think he is the stupidest, most feckless man to have ever held the office, and that is going some.

Now now now, he has lots of competition for that, the thing is that he also had under him people trying to make the president an absolute dictator for 4 year terms, so he has more power than any previous president.

[ponderingturtle]

What did the market close at today 12159? What was it when he came into office?
What has been the term average fluctuation for the last several administrations?

And we need to thank the chinese for that.

[Corsair 115]

The sub-prime mortgages allowed a historical number of Americans to own their own homes. They were the result of decades of liberals saying that certain areas were "red-lined" out of the American dream. Well maybe there was a real, rational reason those areas were red-lined in the first place.This ignores the role that financial regulations and practices might have played in the problem. It also overlooks the possibility of illegal activity such as collusion. Why is the U.S. suffering from a widespread subprime mortgage issue and not other countries? What are the differences at work? Seems to me those are important questions to consider.

[fishbob]

Then what does that make the democrats in congress? They sure as hell aren't beating this "idiot". He is the most successful "lame duck" I have ever seen.

Successful?
as a student?
in military service?
as an oil company manager?
as a baseball team owner?
as a governor?
as a president?

Not really, no, hell no, hah, no, and no.

Bush's status as a complete and total nimrod has nothing at all to do with the dems not beating him. Define success as 'the most popular butt of jokes for the next 50 years' and you are certainly correct.

[BenBurch]

You REALLY don't like Bush do you?

Not like?

That's much, much too gentle.

[fishbob]

I haven't apologized for Bush. I just love the irony that this moron is outsmarting the democratic geniuses in congress at every turn.

Whoa there pardner. Geniuses are few and far between in congress.
Barbara Jordan may have been the last one - and she has been dead for many years.

[Wowbagger]

I love this thread... because you can see the Bush apologists in big glaring details... and, guess what,... they tend to be creationists too! It's the same mind set. Creationist = Anyone articulett does not agree with

Although, I will agree that there is a huge overlap.

I suspect both have a lot to do with ignorance of history.

Bush-defending-types are just the sorts of folks who judge a leader by their smile and handshake, rather than their history of responsability.

Creationists are also the sorts of folks who judge ideas by their "feel good" nature, rather than their history of accomplishments or lack there-of.

[fishbob]

No, your FICO score, down payment and confirmed income should determine your ability to purchase a house. That is the way it worked for generations. Redlining is not a function of race it is a function of income and credit history for any demographic area. There are always exceptions to the rule but that does not mean the rule isn't sound. For every sub-prime borrower that was allowed to buy more house than they could afford and then defaulted there are a thousands of small investors that lost much of their retirement nest egg when he walked away.

Bzzzzzzzt. Faulty logic and glaring error alert.

"Your FICO score, down payment and confirmed income should determine your ability to purchase a house" and "Redlining . . . is a function of income and credit history for any demographic area".

I can't figure out if this is floundering or weaseling.

[Spock Jenkins]

Let's see. When he took office, the market was EXTREMELY over-valued. Anything with "tech" associated with it was trading at hundreds of times earnings (and even more companies were trading at high market values despite never having earned a profit). Several accounting scandals were revealed within his first year of office, Enron being one of them. Within nine months of his taking office, the worst terrorist attack in history struck.

I'd say, given the disasters of his 1st year in office (that would have occurred no matter who was in office), he hasn't been that bad.

My biggest complaint is the spending. But that is war related. Other then that - considering the previous ten years of uncontrolled growth in an overexuberant economy - things have held up rather well. Revenues to the treasury are at record highs even though he reduced most Americans individual tax burden. Unemployment is still relatively low. The S & P 500 held pretty steady. Given the rediculous run-up from 1995 to 2000 - which had no basis in the real fiscal performance of the underlying companies - I'll take steady.

The war is really the biggest issue. If you agree with it - then he's done okay from an economic standpoint. If you don't - then he's pretty much stunk as a president.

Well, that and he's just not that articulate, which really impacts his ability to lead.

[Spock Jenkins]

Redlining is a seperate issue from the sub-prime mortgage crises. Redlining was a practice that banks used to essentially say that they wouldn't even consider applications from certain areas. That practice was wrong and rightly outlawed.

That being said - the pendulum went way to far the other direction, but it wasn't due to redlining being outlawed. It was due in large part to the fact that Banks didn't really make the loans any more. They just provided a fee based service. Check credit, document the loan, make sure the title work get's done, lend the money, sell the loan to wall street. Banks had no risk anymore. They became fee hungry, and in the absence of any meaningful regulation - they could lend to anyone they wanted too if they were willing to pay the fees (which they could finance anyway). This was also legal under Clinton, but because they stock market was performing so rediculously well - people handn't jumped on this speculative band wagon yet. Bush didn't create the sub-prime mortgage crises any more than Clinton created the stock market bubble. They both just happened to be in office when those events occurred.

[Spock Jenkins]

FYI, that translates into approximately 3.3% growth in the Dow per year under Bush. That is significantly below the average.

Yet it does bring the overrall average in line with the pre-1990's bubble where the overall market outperformed the historical average by a good measure. That's why it's an average. 7 years of 3.3% growth in a timeline spanning over 80 years is not that unusual. Particularly after a decade of well over 12% growth per year.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would I ask a mechanic why my blood pressure is off the charts? She is a far left journalist that hates everything the United States stands for. I am twice her age and have more economics background than she does. I don't deal in fantasy that is her province.Are you sure you don't have Naomi Klein confused with Naomi Wolf?

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, but it would still be close.The equation is demand AND SUPPLY. My point was Bush's mistakes contributed, not that they alone were the cause. Geopolitical tensions and speculative buying which seems to me would have been spurred by the Iraq problems certainly helped the price skyrocket faster than it would have were it just steady increase in demand. The massive spending on the Iraq war funded by massive borrowing also contributed by weakening the dollar. Bush and the NeoCons are directly responsible.

Not to feign expertise in this area, I'll just repeat the causes I have found from those who know. Ignore the title, that only refers to breaking the $100 dollar mark.

Lone trader caused $100 price for oil (http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/&articleid=328915&referrer=RSS)They point to booming Asian economies like China and India and insufficient investment by oil exporters, which has led to a decline in spare production capacity.

Geopolitical tensions and new buying interest from speculative investors like investment funds are also behind the quadrupling in the oil price over the last five years, analysts say.

A weakening US dollar, which makes oil more affordable for buyers in stronger currencies, is another factor cited for the rise in prices. -- Sapa-AFP

[Skeptic Ginger]

I love this thread... because you can see the Bush apologists in big glaring details... and, guess what,... they tend to be creationists too! It's the same mind set. You know exactly whom to ignore because they are predictable, brainwashed, and get their "truth" from unreliable sources rather than from evidence.

Are there any Bush loyalists who are not creationists? Any that are not AGW deniers?
Are there any with Ann Coulters's aversion towards everything left of her politics who are more likable than her? More worth listening too? Are the only people who are coming to Bush's defense blowhards? There must be someone likable and intelligent who is a Bush apologist.

Ah well, woo of a feather....

It's nice to know whom to put on ignore. :)Let me guess, Pomy has some asinine personal attack claiming I am poorly informed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
My biggest complaint is the spending. But that is war related. ....And here is where the real problem is disguised. Surely Bush has spent our tax dollars wisely executing this needless war?

Even if you drank the koolaid that the war was needed, have you really looked at where your money was going?

Billions Wasted In Iraq? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/60minutes/main1302378.shtml)The United States has spent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars during its three years in Iraq, and more than $50 billion of it has gone to private contractors hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and rebuild the country.

Auditors say billions of dollars wasted in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168266/)

Panel: Billions 'wasted' in Iraq reconstruction (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-22-iraq-reconstruction_N.htm)

I find it amazing the Bush supporters are so reluctant to admit Bush is the biggest mistake they ever voted for that they completely ignore the fact their tax dollars have been plundered by Bush and Cheney cronies by the billions.

[MilwaukeeMike]

What did the market close at today 12159? What was it when he came into office?
What has been the term average fluctuation for the last several administrations?

Lets not get too ahead of ourselves with the stock market. The recent downturn in the stock market is largly do to the credit crisis, which was caused my SIV's (Structured Investment Vehicles) and collateralized debt obligations being bought and sold by people who either; A - Had a huge risk tolerance, B - Had no idea what they were buying but liked the returns and got in. (I will lean towards B as CDO's are very complex and even many seasoned traders on Wall Street have no idea what they are) The bigger problem is sharky institutions (Countrywide Financial and Citi Bank) packaged good debt (People with good jobs, credit ratings, loans in proportion with lifestyle) with bad debt (The couple from Cali who both worked at Mc Donalds and got a Mc Mortgage for an $800,000 house):eek:

Now you have banks and hedge funds all over the world sitting on piles of CDO's with no buyers in sight. Bank A wants $1 for $1 on the CDO while Investor B is only willing to pay .30 for every $ of CDO... Well my friends, something's got to give, and its the Financial Institutions. Was Bush to blame for this credit crisis... Partially, yet a lot of the damage had been done already. You see, Greenspan actually promoted the idea that everyone in America should own houses like they own TV's.... Lots of them and big ones. The problem is not everyone is Financially qualified to own homes... Greenspan left the industry too unregulated, cut the fed funds rate too much for too long, and yes Bush and Bernanke could have started to initiate more regulation but it would be too little too late. The culture of America is somewhat to blame here also... People try to assume too much debt with no savings. Well, it has caught up to us and the economy is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Now.. Oh my god... Here goes Bush with this $150 billion stimulus package. Listen, in a $14 trillion dollar economy, a mere $150 billion does nothing. We probably spend more than that every month in Iraq.

So the stock market tanking is not all Bush's fault... I emphasize, "stock market." Now the overall economy. That probably is his fault, as a by product of his decisions to invade countries, so on so on.

[articulett]

Creationist = Anyone articulett does not agree with



Wrong. I disagree with plenty of people who are not creationists--Claus, for one. Unrepentant Sinner for another. It's just that I've gotten pretty good at recognizing creationists in "I'm not a creationist" clothing... (schooled in part by some people here when I was the one who took people at their word like you do.) ;) hint: --beware those who pretend to be interested in or current on evolution, but seem utterly uninterested in current developments and think they are smarter than Dawkins or toss off snide innuendos about him (or memes) without really saying anything.

[Trakar]

Lets not get too ahead of ourselves with the stock market. The recent downturn in the stock market is largly do to the credit crisis, which was caused my SIV's (Structured Investment Vehicles) and collateralized debt obligations being bought and sold by people who either; A - Had a huge risk tolerance, B - Had no idea what they were buying but liked the returns and got in. (I will lean towards B as CDO's are very complex and even many seasoned traders on Wall Street have no idea what they are) The bigger problem is sharky institutions (Countrywide Financial and Citi Bank) packaged good debt (People with good jobs, credit ratings, loans in proportion with lifestyle) with bad debt (The couple from Cali who both worked at Mc Donalds and got a Mc Mortgage for an $800,000 house):eek:

Now you have banks and hedge funds all over the world sitting on piles of CDO's with no buyers in sight. Bank A wants $1 for $1 on the CDO while Investor B is only willing to pay .30 for every $ of CDO... Well my friends, something's got to give, and its the Financial Institutions. Was Bush to blame for this credit crisis... Partially, yet a lot of the damage had been done already. You see, Greenspan actually promoted the idea that everyone in America should own houses like they own TV's.... Lots of them and big ones. The problem is not everyone is Financially qualified to own homes... Greenspan left the industry too unregulated, cut the fed funds rate too much for too long, and yes Bush and Bernanke could have started to initiate more regulation but it would be too little too late. The culture of America is somewhat to blame here also... People try to assume too much debt with no savings. Well, it has caught up to us and the economy is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Now.. Oh my god... Here goes Bush with this $150 billion stimulus package. Listen, in a $14 trillion dollar economy, a mere $150 billion does nothing. We probably spend more than that every month in Iraq.

So the stock market tanking is not all Bush's fault... I emphasize, "stock market." Now the overall economy. That probably is his fault, as a by product of his decisions to invade countries, so on so on.


So you don't consider his manipulation of the regulations and agencies in charge of enforcing such, along with the pressuring and playing with the interests rates to have affected the Stock Market, money and mortgage industires?

[fuelair]

Being a dumb redneck from Texas I had to look up "perspicacity" just to make sure I hadn't been insulted. I'm still not sure but I'm still amused by the absolute rage at this president. Like I said earlier he will be gone in a year and all will be lollipops and gumdrops from there on so keep the faith.
Do not, please, assume I think all will be lolly and gummy. I know it will be a long time before the terrible things it and it's handlers have done will be fixed - and some things they caused never will be. Except when I am working retail, you will always know if I am insulting you - while working in a photography shop I received an employee award for , specifically, my ability to insult customers so that they never realized they were being insulted. Not unlike my Army Commendation Medal, which was awarded -as I was at airport waiting for flight back to US and demob(I know that's mostly British - but I like using foreign languages occasionally) - for, officially, helping keep up the morale of my fellow troops in many ways (unofficially, for getting in and showing porn).

[articulett]

You boost the morale of fellow forum members too, fuelair. It will take a long time to be lolly and gummy, but at least the cancer will be excised-- dead soldiers, won't be coming back to life, however, and trillions of dollars is a lot of money wasted--(bet Bush is thinking, "say--can't we just print up some more money if we need it??")

[pomeroo]

Let me guess, Pomy has some asinine personal attack claiming I am poorly informed.


Who would ever claim that you are uninformed? You are as informed as someone who has never read a book can possibly be.

[Trakar]

Creationist = Anyone articulett does not agree with

Although, I will agree that there is a huge overlap.

I suspect both have a lot to do with ignorance of history.

Bush-defending-types are just the sorts of folks who judge a leader by their smile and handshake, rather than their history of responsability.

Creationists are also the sorts of folks who judge ideas by their "feel good" nature, rather than their history of accomplishments or lack there-of.

Sorta like Obama supporters?

[Darth Rotor]

Hahahahahahahahahahah... That's a good one. Are you suggesting some miracle is going to change Bush's legacy from the worst President in US history to something else?
Are you trying to earn a new nick, like Skeptifool?

What about my point that I was betting against him unscrewing the first six years do you fail to understand?

Try reading an entire post, for a change.

The popping sound that you hear will precede your once again experiencing daylight.
Your evaluation of Shrub is far too kind. And I notice you refer to it as a man
The BDS is beneath you.

Or is it?

Maybe it's the best you can manage.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

It's nice to know whom to put on ignore. :)
Nice to see whose cowardice extends across multiple forums.

You have been advised before: you are inept in your usage of the term "apologist."

Learn the meanings and nuances of words before you use them, or expose yourself as inarticulate.

Sorry, in your case, it is too late.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Not like?

That's much, much too gentle.
Ben, I salute you for your sincerity and honesty in this post.

Well played.

@fuelair:

As we have discussed previously, the 2003 tax cut, given war had been adopted as a policy, was guns and butter policy, and as such utter rubbish. The subprime has been building for a while, but I find it curious that his dad was happy to bail out S & L's, while GWB seems bound and determined to shore up mortgage lenders who took on significant risk.

Eerie parallel, and no, not a thing to be proud of if one is W, and has presided over the Dollar dropping as it did when Nixon first floated it.

A president in the pocket of bankers. Way to give troofers and the whacko end of Libertarians grist for the mill. :p

Andrew Jackson wept.

DR

[Trakar]

...Revenues to the treasury are at record highs even though he reduced most Americans individual tax burden...

In what universe?

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy
Congressional Study Finds Middle Class Paying More Of Tax Burden (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml)

99% of Americans Are Net Losers
Under Bush Tax and Spending Policies -(.pdf) (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/debtus.pdf)

The Bush Tax Increase (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b34039.html)

Working poor suffer under Bush tax cuts (http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0409/26/a01-284666.htm)

Bush claims most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income persons. Kerry says Pell Grants were cut. Don't believe either. (http://www.factcheck.org/new_and_recycled_distortions_at_final_presidential .html)

The Myth That Bush Has Reduced the Tax Burden (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/04/_the_myth_that_.html)

Bush tax cut mythology (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythology/)

[Texas]

Are you sure you don't have Naomi Klein confused with Naomi Wolf?

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein

[Skeptic Ginger]

You boost the morale of fellow forum members too, fuelair. It will take a long time to be lolly and gummy, but at least the cancer will be excised-- dead soldiers, won't be coming back to life, however, and trillions of dollars is a lot of money wasted--(bet Bush is thinking, "say--can't we just print up some more money if we need it??")Actually, that's less far from the truth than you might suspect. According to Paul O'Neill via a book written after extensive interviews with him, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)
“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.” I'd say that's about as close to saying, "just print the money", as you can get without actually printing it.

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, that's less far from the truth than you might suspect. According to Paul O'Neill via a book written after extensive interviews with him, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)
I'd say that's about as close to saying, "just print the money", as you can get without actually printing it.
Given your quotes, which come as no surprise to me, can you explain why the Newt led GOP drove hard at zero deficit budgeting? If Reagan proved deficits don't matter, what was the Contract With America, in specific the deficit reduction push for six years, all about?

(One of the smartest things WJC did was recognize that as a sound idea, and get on board with it.)

DR

[Pardalis]

You would do well to read more, Tex. You are uninformed.

I recommend for a start you read,

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Kline (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book)



You are aware that Klein started her little "shock theory" from a paragraph in one of Milton Friedman's book that had nothing to do with what she's saying? She took that idea and made up a whole theory out of whole cloth.

Just like Wolf, she's another feminist (coincidence?) who doesn't have the credentials to be making theses theories to begin with. They are just making haphazard connections between different ideas from different fields and try to correlate them just to scare people.

I'm surprised that your critical thinking skills go out the window whenever politics are involved. You kick ass against creationists.

[Texas]

Well If I wanted to bring it down to "race" I wouldn't have included Age, religion, etc... I mentioned race because as far as redlining goes that would be the first strike against me should it be occurring.
Well your first post to me made the point that you were Black so it was you that first used race as personal point. Once that is done it places me as White at a disadvantage in any discussion of public or private policy.


Right, and my question is, what makes you think that those were/are the only requirements?

Because those were the requirements for obtaining a mortgage. I don't see the point of contention with that.


Agreed, but where did the liberals make them do this?

Here is one example from 1998

Closing the mortgage credit gap

HMDA data document that each year hundreds of thousands of households apply for mortgage credit, but are denied. Since a disproportionate number of those denied credit seek to buy homes in urban areas, closing the mortgage credit gap is of vital concern to the nation's mayors. Far and away, expanding homeownership opportunities is the best urban policy available. Homeownership not only enhances the well-being of individual families, it helps build the tax base of urban areas and enhance the social stability of communities.

Understandably, private mortgage industry is reluctant to accept the risk associated with low downpayment loans. Even so, given the importance of homeownership in this nation, the private mortgage industry has a special obligation to work with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and other public agencies to ensure that all households willing and able to purchase a home have access to mortgage credit. The denial of mortgage credit does more than limit the homebuying aspirations of families; it limits efforts to revitalize urban areas. The Conference of Mayors challenges all segments of the mortgage industry to ensure that the legacy of discriminatory practices is not allowed to persist in the market place of today.
Link....http://syracusethenandnow.org/Redlining/NewRedlining/Americas_Homeownership_Gap.htm


I know there were more White wasps. Now imagine if they couldn't get a loan because of this mess. Bottom line, the term comes from a race, age, whatever, kind of discrimination. Thankfully it happens on a much, much, MUCH smaller scale that it did since the 30's. (IIRC that was the start of the practice although the term wasn't used until the mid-late 60's) In fact Shore bank grew in great part of redlining

I don't argue that the term redlining has been used as a racial construct but the fact is the practice of redlining as a way of defining risk in geographic and demographic areas and groups crosses all races.

[latent aaaack]

Presidents don't control the economy much but a lot of their policies affect it and predictably so. Some presidents use all of their available wiggle room at affecting the economy to improve it and some of them use it to help it nosedive. I agree with Greenspan based partly on appeal to (justified) authority:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/business/15cnd-greenspan.html

Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per), whom he described in the interview as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.” It was a presidency marred by the Monica Lewinsky (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/monica_s_lewinsky/index.html?inline=nyt-per) scandal, he writes, but he fondly describes his alliance with two of Mr. Clinton’s Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/robert_e_rubin/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Lawrence H. Summers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/lawrence_h_summers/index.html?inline=nyt-per), in battling financial crises in Latin America and then Asia.
By contrast, Mr. Greenspan paints a picture of Mr. Bush as a man driven more by ideology and fulfilling campaign promises made in 2000, incurious about the effects of his own economic policy, and portrays an administration incapable of executing policy.

In the 500-page book, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described President Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/paul_h_oneill/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and John Snow, as essentially powerless.

Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in Congress lost their way,” wrote Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”

[Texas]

Bzzzzzzzt. Faulty logic and glaring error alert.

"Your FICO score, down payment and confirmed income should determine your ability to purchase a house" and "Redlining . . . is a function of income and credit history for any demographic area".

I can't figure out if this is floundering or weaseling.


I eagerly await your coming correction of my logic and error. Thanks.

[Texas]

Do not, please, assume I think all will be lolly and gummy. I know it will be a long time before the terrible things it and it's handlers have done will be fixed - and some things they caused never will be. Except when I am working retail, you will always know if I am insulting you - while working in a photography shop I received an employee award for , specifically, my ability to insult customers so that they never realized they were being insulted. Not unlike my Army Commendation Medal, which was awarded -as I was at airport waiting for flight back to US and demob(I know that's mostly British - but I like using foreign languages occasionally) - for, officially, helping keep up the morale of my fellow troops in many ways (unofficially, for getting in and showing porn).

You do have a lot to be proud of.

[corplinx]

In what universe?

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy
Congressional Study Finds Middle Class Paying More Of Tax Burden (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml)

99% of Americans Are Net Losers
Under Bush Tax and Spending Policies -(.pdf) (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/debtus.pdf)

The Bush Tax Increase (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b34039.html)

Working poor suffer under Bush tax cuts (http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0409/26/a01-284666.htm)

Bush claims most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income persons. Kerry says Pell Grants were cut. Don't believe either. (http://www.factcheck.org/new_and_recycled_distortions_at_final_presidential .html)

The Myth That Bush Has Reduced the Tax Burden (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/04/_the_myth_that_.html)

Bush tax cut mythology (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythology/)

The only reputable link in that bunch is the factcheck link. However, it relies on faulty data from a game based on raw dollar amounts instead of percentages. This is a common error.

Bush may be a lousy president for many reasons, but the tax cut distortions and lies by his opponents rely on these tactics over and over.

The krugman link you posted was especially intellectually dishonest.


Why do Bush's opponents feel the need to distort a 3 percent for 30k and 1 percent for 300k taxcut into being a tax cut for the wealthy? They _always_ compute the raw amount and distort the taxcut. Here's the deal. Under american partisan logic, a 1 percent across the board taxcut is always a taxcut for the wealthy since the wealthy get more back (since they pay more in).

From now on out, when anyone on this forum claims this is so, I am going to put my foot down and call a spade a spade. You are either a fool or a liar if you make such a claim. There is no other excuse. Period.

[Texas]

FYI, that translates into approximately 3.3% growth in the Dow per year under Bush. That is significantly below the average.
Well it depends if you just buy a bunch of stock index funds and forget them. The last official bear market was from March 2002 until April 2003. Diversified bond funds at that time averaged better than 10% return so if you had reallocated your portfolio for the bear market then your return would have been far higher than your 3.3% market return. It is not how the market reacts it is how you react to it that determines your bottom line returns.

[Texas]

This ignores the role that financial regulations and practices might have played in the problem. It also overlooks the possibility of illegal activity such as collusion. Why is the U.S. suffering from a widespread subprime mortgage issue and not other countries? What are the differences at work? Seems to me those are important questions to consider.

All of what you are saying is true however, the entire world IS suffering from the sub-prime mess in that their largest institutions bought the CDOs, SIVs and Asset based mortgage bonds like they were penny candy. They are not financial imbeciles and they made big money from them but few of them hedged their risks adequately. I just dropped Merrill Lynch as my financial advisor like a hot rock due to their stupidity in this mess. We now have Congress trying to force Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to loosen their own regulations to bail out the sub-prime borrowers.

[Texas]

So you don't consider his manipulation of the regulations and agencies in charge of enforcing such, along with the pressuring and playing with the interests rates to have affected the Stock Market, money and mortgage industires? Umm he isn't manipulating regulations that would be Barney Frank yelling for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to take on Jumbo loans http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/21/BUS3RLV0M.DTL and place more sub-prim debt on their balance sheets. Bush isn't playing with interest rates that is the Fed. Presidents have far less influence over the Fed than Congress. Did you see the grilling the Fed chief got from congress yesterday? They sure were not calling for rate hikes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I am twice her age...Klein is 37. That makes you more than 74. Not that every person over 70 would have similar opinions, but I am wondering if yours in particular has anything to do with the era you spent your formative years in. My father believed communists instigated the Vietnam war protests. It was an absurd belief that came from his failure to consider the world had changed from the post WWII era of communism vs capitalism.

As to the claim you know more economics than Klein, care to post your credentials so we can compare? She is an award winning journalist (http://www.naomiklein.org/meet-naomi) with two international best selling non-fiction books......in 2004, her reporting from Iraq for Harper’s Magazine won the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism (http://fm.hunter.cuny.edu/aronson/index.html). In 2004, she released The Take, a feature documentary about Argentina’s occupied factories, co-produced with director Avi Lewis. The film was an official selection of the Venice Biennale and won the Best Documentary Jury Prize at the American Film Institute’s Film Festival in Los Angeles.

She is a former Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics (https://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/miliband/Default.htm) and holds an honorary Doctor of Civil Laws from the University of King’s College (http://www.ukings.ca/kings_4122.html), Nova Scotia.


Who else ranks as a Miliband Fellow? (https://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/miliband/visitingTeachingFellows.htm)Visiting teaching fellows, whose appointments began in 1997, have included the following speakers:

* Professor Stuart Hall, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, The Open University; widely published author on culture
* Professor Perry Anderson, historian and political theorist
* Professor David Harvey, social and economic geographer
* Dr Noreena Hertz, theorist of global corporate behaviour
* Professor Bob Sutcliffe, Visiting Miliband Fellow at LSE



There appears to only be two other people awarded the Doctor of Civil Laws from the University of King’s College, Vice-Admiral Glenn V. Davidson (http://www.ukings.ca/kings_4121.html) and Dr. Natalie Zemon Davis (http://www.ukings.ca/kings_4123.html)

The James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism was also won by Paul Krugman (http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/news/newsreleases/2004/aronson.shtml), a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton. Additional winners (http://fm.hunter.cuny.edu/aronson/pastwinners.html) have been Seymour M. Hersh and Molly Ivins.

Yes, Klein is a liberal, but that doesn't mean she hasn't writen extensively investigated, meticulously accurate material. People who consider themselves conservatives such as yourself overlook a detailed source of information about how and by whom your tax dollars were wasted, ripped off, and inefficiently spent on shoddy materials and work because you dismiss this investigative reporter as not having your political point of view.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given your quotes, which come as no surprise to me, can you explain why the Newt led GOP drove hard at zero deficit budgeting? If Reagan proved deficits don't matter, what was the Contract With America, in specific the deficit reduction push for six years, all about?

(One of the smartest things WJC did was recognize that as a sound idea, and get on board with it.)

DRI only quoted Cheney there. Personally, I believe deficits do matter. I think the Clinton economic policies by far were superior to Reagan's.

As to Newt and Reagan and Bush Jr, all of them and most Republicans run on the lie that they are the economic conservatives and the Democrats are the spenders. What really differs between the two parties is what they spend the money on, but the Republicans, at least the ones in my lifetime, have never really been economic conservatives. It is an image that the public moronically sucks up as truth.

Somehow if you pour billions and now growing to soon become trillions on 'defense', that spending is conveniently left out of the campaign image. Wasteful military spending doesn't count, only wasteful spending on social services. And tax cuts are claimed to actually increase revenue. What a big lie that is. Tax cuts are a phony campaign slogan that people knock themselves over to vote for.

Take a look at the national debt corrected for inflation (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html) about halfway down the page. Notice the beginning of the Reagan years, the Clinton years and the Bush Jr years. Who do you really believe are the true economic conservatives based on the actual money spent over the money taken in?

[Texas]

Klein is 37. That makes you more than 74. Not that every person over 70 would have similar opinions, but I am wondering if yours in particular has anything to do with the era you spent your formative years in. My father believed communists instigated the Vietnam war protests. It was an absurd belief that came from his failure to consider the world had changed from the post WWII era of communism vs capitalism.

As to the claim you know more economics than Klein, care to post your credentials so we can compare? She is an award winning journalist (http://www.naomiklein.org/meet-naomi) with two international best selling non-fiction books...


Who else ranks as a Miliband Fellow? (https://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/miliband/visitingTeachingFellows.htm)



There appears to only be two other people awarded the Doctor of Civil Laws from the University of King’s College, Vice-Admiral Glenn V. Davidson (http://www.ukings.ca/kings_4121.html) and Dr. Natalie Zemon Davis (http://www.ukings.ca/kings_4123.html)

The James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism was also won by Paul Krugman (http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/news/newsreleases/2004/aronson.shtml), a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton. Additional winners (http://fm.hunter.cuny.edu/aronson/pastwinners.html) have been Seymour M. Hersh and Molly Ivins.

Yes, Klein is a liberal, but that doesn't mean she hasn't writen extensively investigated, meticulously accurate material. People who consider themselves conservatives such as yourself overlook a detailed source of information about how and by whom your tax dollars were wasted, ripped off, and inefficiently spent on shoddy materials and work because you dismiss this investigative reporter as not having your political point of view.

Well I am pushing 70 so forgive my slight exaggeration. Yes she is widely renowned in far left circles. Good for her. Just as any ideologue she makes her case from ideology. That means it is suspect as to its value in the real world. As to my background in economics I have very little formal education in the subject but I have a lifetime of experience in navigating the real world economics and have some measure of success in doing so. I am not an ideologue since I tend to act in my and my family's self interest and base my votes and actions accordingly.

[Texas]

Klein is 37. That makes you more than 74. Not that every person over 70 would have similar opinions, but I am wondering if yours in particular has anything to do with the era you spent your formative years in. My father believed communists instigated the Vietnam war protests. It was an absurd belief that came from his failure to consider the world had changed from the post WWII era of communism vs capitalism.

LOL. Did you ever manage to "educate" old Dad?

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are aware that Klein started her little "shock theory" from a paragraph in one of Milton Friedman's book that had nothing to do with what she's saying? She took that idea and made up a whole theory out of whole cloth.

Just like Wolf, she's another feminist (coincidence?) who doesn't have the credentials to be making theses theories to begin with. They are just making haphazard connections between different ideas from different fields and try to correlate them just to scare people.

I'm surprised that your critical thinking skills go out the window whenever politics are involved. You kick ass against creationists.Actually, the pattern I notice is I post sources of factual verifiable information and your side either posts nothing or they post verifiably false information. Wolf and Klein are nothing alike. And the majority of the sources I cite are good sources. I've almost finished Klein's book and I know the details quite well, thank you. Have you read it or are you going by someone else's review?

[Skeptic Ginger]

LOL. Did you ever manage to "educate" old Dad?Before he died he came to respect my intelligence and knowledge.

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I am not an ideologue since I tend to act in my and my family's self interest and base my votes and actions accordingly.If that is the case and you are here defending Bush, perhaps you'd care to comment on the massive waste and fraud he has poured your tax dollars into. New Orleans and Iraq have countless examples of what I am talking about.

No bid billion dollar contracts by the dozens in Iraq with work never completed, billions with a b in cash sent off to Iraq with virtually no accounting during Bremer's reign, hundreds of FEMA trailers ordered, paid for and never used. These are not things Congress was responsible for.

[Texas]

If that is the case and you are here defending Bush, perhaps you'd care to comment on the massive waste and fraud he has poured your tax dollars into. New Orleans and Iraq have countless examples of what I am talking about.
I don't think you can find a post defending Bush but at my advanced age I may have forgot. I was just amused by all of the Bush is a "moron" posts while that "moron" has been having his way with Democrats from the moment he beat Ann Richards for governor a decade ago. You have to admit that for a "moron" that is over achieving.

Yes government wastes money that is what it does best. If you have an example of any point in history that that has not been the case then please enlighten me. As the girl on the old Saturday Night Live show use to say, "it is always something". I feel the government wastes money in many areas I am sure you would defend but that is what makes a rodeo. Every American loves to rail at the government.

[Texas]

Before he died he came to respect my intelligence and knowledge.Must have been good genes then.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think you can find a post defending Bush but at my advanced age I may have forgot. I was just amused by all of the Bush is a "moron" posts while that "moron" has been having his way with Democrats from the moment he beat Ann Richards for governor a decade ago. You have to admit that for a "moron" that is over achieving.....Some morons inherit their wealth. Bush's biggest talent was rallying the Evangelical vote though I'm not sure that wasn't actually Rove's handiwork. In my opinion, everything else has been mostly things other people did that he benefited from.

[Texas]

Some morons inherit their wealth. Bush's biggest talent was rallying the Evangelical vote though I'm not sure that wasn't actually Rove's handiwork. In my opinion, everything else has been mostly things other people did that he benefited from. Sure but that doesn't negate the fact that Bush with the exception of Social Security reform he has accomplished almost every agenda item he came into office with. He got his tax cuts, he got his USSC picks he got his war funding without strings etc. By any account he has been an effective president in getting his agenda into place. I know many hate his agenda but that does not mean he has effectively used the levers of power to his advantage.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I wouldn't credit Bush for any of that. He's a puppet. I do agree this particular NeoCon crowd has taken manipulation and control to new heights.

I take it you consider cheating to get there still successful? And I don't just mean a butterfly ballot in FL either. The entire Gonzales affair was about cheating to stay in power. The redistricting in Texas, surely you are aware of that sleazy move, is another. The Constitution and election by actually winning more votes is something Bush doesn't seem to give a crap about.

[Pardalis]

Actually, the pattern I notice is I post sources of factual verifiable information and your side either posts nothing or they post verifiably false information.

My side? I'm just trying not to be swayed by ideologues, on either "side". I used to like the left, until I found out they used just as much propaganda as the right.

And the majority of the sources I cite are good sources. I've almost finished Klein's book and I know the details quite well, thank you. Have you read it or are you going by someone else's review?I haven't read it and I'm sure you'll be starting a thread about it real soon.

I read this piece and found it interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/books/review/Stiglitz-t.html

I know she based her whole theory on the "economic shock therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_%28economics%29)", which he used in a completely other context, Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile#Milton_Friedman_and_Chilean_Econo mic_Policy), to restart the country's economy after the coup. Klein jumped on that and saw possibilities of shock herself, linking this to shock treatment in torture to make an obvious appeal to emotion (I'm not sure the link between psychology and economy is valid, does she have a degree in psychology too?). All you got to do now is compare these cases of CIA torture and the ones under Pinochet and voilà, you got Iraq and Pinochet linked in your mind, and Friedman is the magic thread! It all makes sense now... Seems to me she's doing it backwards, she starts with an idea (America and capitalism are bad) and tries to find things that have "bad" associated to them that will fit together and push that idea (Pinochet, Iraq, torture).

Just like Naomi Wolfe started her theory from an impression somebody told her, and then she tried to see if America could become like Nazi Germany. When you start with a biased premise based on fear and ideology, you will always find what you are looking for, make connections where there may be none. Klein is doing the same thing, her spin is a little different, trying to link an economic theory with the invasion of Iraq. Because, remember "shock and awe", you know, it has the word "shock" in it... :rolleyes:

How many word combinations with "shock" did she try before she came up with her idea?

It reminds me of truthers using one phrase in the PNAC (the "New Pearl Habour") to prove there was a vast 9/11 conspiracy...

She may have some good points, I'm not a big fan of neoliberalism and privatization, but I'm also no fan of communism as I wouldn't put Mao and Stalin in my list of favorite people. It's the fear mongering I can't stand. And Wolf and Klein seem to be doing alot of that. I agree with Texas on this one, I don't trust ideologues. If one wants to make a point, one should be able to do it without the fear mongering.

Just saying.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My side? I'm just trying not to be swayed by ideologues, on either "side". I used to like the left, until I found out they used just as much propaganda as the right.

I haven't read it and I'm sure you'll be starting a thread about it real soon.

I read this piece and found it interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/books/review/Stiglitz-t.html

I know she based her whole theory on the "economic shock therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_%28economics%29)", which he used in a completely other context, Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile#Milton_Friedman_and_Chilean_Econo mic_Policy), to restart the country's economy after the coup. Klein jumped on that and saw possibilities of shock herself, linking this to shock treatment in torture to make an obvious appeal to emotion (I'm not sure the link between psychology and economy is valid, does she have a degree in psychology too?). All you got to do now is compare these cases of CIA torture and the ones under Pinochet and voilà, you got Iraq and Pinochet linked in your mind, and Friedman is the magic thread! It all makes sense now... Seems to me she's doing it backwards, she starts with an idea (America and capitalism are bad) and tries to find things that have "bad" associated to them that will fit together and push that idea (Pinochet, Iraq, torture).

Just like Naomi Wolfe started her theory from an impression somebody told her, and then she tried to see if America could become like Nazi Germany. When you start with a biased premise based on fear and ideology, you will always find what you are looking for, make connections where there may be none. Klein is doing the same thing, her spin is a little different, trying to link an economic theory with the invasion of Iraq. Because, remember "shock and awe", you know, it has the word "shock" in it... :rolleyes:

How many word combinations with "shock" did she try before she came up with her idea?

It reminds me of truthers using one phrase in the PNAC (the "New Pearl Habour") to prove there was a vast 9/11 conspiracy...

She may have some good points, I'm not a big fan of neoliberalism and privatization, but I'm also no fan of communism as I wouldn't put Mao and Stalin in my list of favorite people. It's the fear mongering I can't stand. And Wolf and Klein seem to be doing alot of that. I agree with Texas on this one, I don't trust ideologues. If one wants to make a point, one should be able to do it without the fear mongering.

Just saying.Again I say, the two Naomis are not comparable and if you really do care about quality information, you should stop comparing them.

You always make little references to not being a Bush NeoCon conservative and you are Canadian, yadda yadda. But your views are quite clear, Pard, and they are right in line with the opposite of mine. Though I do think once in a great while you are rational when you read what people of other political persuasions have to say.

Shock therapy, torture and man made and natural disaster made shocks to the economic and social systems are discussed as a metaphor. To think Klein is equating them is naive. On the other hand just in a literary sense, the metaphor is a tad over used in the book. But that is just in the literary sense. As far as the actual material in the book, it is quite revealing and her conclusions are certainly consistent with the evidence. You really should read it. Everyone should read this book.

And as for the fear mongering, there is none of that in this book. There is severe criticism of the current and past administrations, but there isn't anything in the book suggesting the torture will be turned on the Americans any time soon. So you have indeed drawn a false conclusion about this book.

[Pardalis]

But your views are quite clear, Pard, and they are right in line with the opposite of mine

You sure are far out there in the Left :p, but I don't think I'm that far out on the Right. I may be closer than you think.

Shock therapy, torture and man made and natural disaster made shocks to the economic and social systems are discussed as a metaphor.Why use this kind of metaphor if not to make a emotional appeal? Of course the Iraq war is horrible, of course Katrina turned out to be a mess, and who could argue that torture is not bad? That's what bugs me, she tricks you into having to agree with her, by using comparisons that you cannot defend. I would like to read her book but I can't stand being manipulated this way.

And as for the fear mongering, there is none of that in this book.I think the metaphors you just mentionned is a form of fear mongering.

[Texas]

Well, I wouldn't credit Bush for any of that. He's a puppet. I do agree this particular NeoCon crowd has taken manipulation and control to new heights.

.LOL you are delightful, I really admire your passion. Reagan was also described as an affable dunce yet historians now place him as 1 of 2 trans formative presidents of the 20th century. The other being FDR who is the only president in my memory that is as reviled as Bush only from the other direction. Poor Obama is now facing the wrath of the left for his recent recognition of Reagan being trans-formative....it is sad really. The political pendulum tends to swing in 30 to 50 years cycles and it may be that the pendulum is swinging to the left. I probably will not vote this time since I have had my day and none of the candidates remotely appeal to me. Hillary is by far the smartest of the field in both camps and is probably smarter that Bill who I actually consider a good president especially after the 1994 congressional elections. I guess I just don't have the rage capacity towards politics I used to have. It is really a waste of time since asking politicians not to lie cheat and steal is like asking a skunk not to stink.

[Skeptic Ginger]

LOL you are delightful, I really admire your passion. Reagan was also described as an affable dunce yet historians now place him as 1 of 2 trans formative presidents of the 20th century. The other being FDR who is the only president in my memory that is as reviled as Bush only from the other direction. Poor Obama is now facing the wrath of the left for his recent recognition of Reagan being trans-formative....it is sad really. The political pendulum tends to swing in 30 to 50 years cycles and it may be that the pendulum is swinging to the left. I probably will not vote this time since I have had my day and none of the candidates remotely appeal to me. Hillary is by far the smartest of the field in both camps and is probably smarter that Bill who I actually consider a good president especially after the 1994 congressional elections. I guess I just don't have the rage capacity towards politics I used to have. It is really a waste of time since asking politicians not to lie cheat and steal is like asking a skunk not to stink.Reagan also deteriorated into dementia after he left office, and he had Dupuytren's contracture (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dupuytrens-contracture/DS00732/DSECTION=3) which is a common sign of alcoholism and you often saw Nancy and Ron holding their martinis while Nancy talked about her "Just Say no" campaign (well maybe I'm exaggerating but they were often pictured with drinks in hand).

But, comparing the two, I don't believe Reagan was dumb. He didn't talk like an uneducated fool, he obviously read a book and the paper once in a while, and he certainly had been out of the country a few times before he was elected President. He may very well have been deteriorating mentally while still in office but he wasn't stupid like Bush during most of his career.

I don't however, buy the usual whitewash the historians frequently give Reagan. He authorized the training of foreign military leaders in torture and other methods of oppression and supported ruthless dictators in many countries under the misguided attempt to keep those commies out of Central and South America. Trouble was, the approach favored rich corporate powers that had Reagan's ear in WA and ignored the fact much of the oppression wasn't against communism, it was against labor unions and civil rights movements. Some of this I know from personal experience. I spent time in Central America just before Reagan came into office. I met some of those "Contras". The Contras were not Freedom Fighters by any stretch of the imagination.

[Texas]

Reagan also deteriorated into dementia after he left office, and he had Dupuytren's contracture (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dupuytrens-contracture/DS00732/DSECTION=3) which is a common sign of alcoholism and you often saw Nancy and Ron holding their martinis while Nancy talked about her "Just Say no" campaign (well maybe I'm exaggerating but they were often pictured with drinks in hand).

But, comparing the two, I don't believe Reagan was dumb. He didn't talk like an uneducated fool, he obviously read a book and the paper once in a while, and he certainly had been out of the country a few times before he was elected President. He may very well have been deteriorating mentally while still in office but he wasn't stupid like Bush during most of his career.

You are like a cat with catnip. Your second paragraph defends Reagan in order to justify your absolute hatred of Bush. The exact same things the left is saying about Bush was said about Reagan while in office. Your first paragraph shows that your upbringing is lacking in regards to basic human kindness. I may have contributed to your outburst in not agreeing with you so I will bid you goodnight.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not defending Reagan. I'm describing the differences I see in the two. Why would being disengaged A) always be for the same reason, and B) always be related to being unintelligent?

BTW, I absolutely hate them both. You probably read my post before the last edit. I have a tendency to post afterthoughts.

As to the basic human kindness, neither of the two deserves any. They have both been personally responsible for needless death, maiming, torture and general disregard for the suffering of thousands of people.

[fishbob]

I eagerly await your coming correction of my logic and error. Thanks.
Don't play dumb. But, just to humor you -

"Your FICO score . . . . " refers to the financial capabilities of specific individual. Great - this is as American as you can get.

"Redlining . . . is a function of income and credit history for any demographic area" is lumping individuals into groups based on something other than their financial capabilities. Historically, this other something was very closely tied to race.

[Texas]

Don't play dumb. But, just to humor you -

"Your FICO score . . . . " refers to the financial capabilities of specific individual. Great - this is as American as you can get.

"Redlining . . . is a function of income and credit history for any demographic area" is lumping individuals into groups based on something other than their financial capabilities. Historically, this other something was very closely tied to race.

I ain't playing:) However, MANY words have taken on racial overtones and redlining is no different. Do you REALLY believe in the late 20th and 21st century that bankers give a damn about who gives them money? Money is as green coming from a black or brown hand as it is from a white one. It is the job of those providing the up front money, mortgage, to make the loan based on the ability to pay and the the risk associated with the borrowers willingness to pay when things get tight, not just the ability. The sad fact is that we are now seeing that the past reluctance of banks to grant mortgages in previously red-lined areas was a prudent risk assessment.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thought you went to bed, Tex?

[Texas]

Thought you went to bed, Tex?
No I just said goodnight to you. I don't care for bad manners from you or from me and I was on the verge of being very bad mannered with you. I will answer your last post when I am sure I can do it reasonably.

[Trakar]

The krugman link you posted was especially intellectually dishonest..

Not intellectually dishonest, just irrelevent, as it dealt with an entirely different aspect than was challenged.

From now on out, when anyone on this forum claims this is so, I am going to put my foot down and call a spade a spade. You are either a fool or a liar if you make such a claim. There is no other excuse. Period.

It must be nice to live in such a self-deluded, disconnected ideological isolation, at least your world is nice and comfy.

[pomeroo]

Well, I wouldn't credit Bush for any of that. He's a puppet. I do agree this particular NeoCon crowd has taken manipulation and control to new heights.

I take it you consider cheating to get there still successful? And I don't just mean a butterfly ballot in FL either. The entire Gonzales affair was about cheating to stay in power. The redistricting in Texas, surely you are aware of that sleazy move, is another. The Constitution and election by actually winning more votes is something Bush doesn't seem to give a crap about.


Whoops! You've been caught lying again. The Butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat and printed in newspapers weeks before the election as required by law. If it confused some Democrats, well, it wouldn't have confused anyone smart.

[corplinx]

It must be nice to live in such a self-deluded, disconnected ideological isolation, at least your world is nice and comfy.

In my deluded world, a 1 percent cut benefits everyone equally to their own.

In your miserable envious world, the man who makes 30,000 looks at the man who makes 31,000 and says 1 percent isnt fair since the 31k man makes slightly more.

I'd prefer to live in my world. Its the one where reason and logic trump envy.

[BenBurch]

This has been hilarious!

Thanks, guys! I knew I could depend on some amusing decoration of the pig here!

[corplinx]

This has been hilarious!

Thanks, guys! I knew I could depend on some amusing decoration of the pig here!

That's great praise coming from the guy who's first thread on this subforum was about how bad the GOP is and when it was pointed out that both parties had those same issues, you defended your partisan viewpoint with "but at leas the democrats do crappy things for the right reasons".

Unfortunately, ignorance is not funny nor is cognitive dissonance. When I read a BenBurch post, I don't laugh, I pity.

[articulett]

Corplinx, are you a creationist too?

[fishbob]

However, MANY words have taken on racial overtones and redlining is no different. Do you REALLY believe in the late 20th and 21st century that bankers give a damn about who gives them money? Money is as green coming from a black or brown hand as it is from a white one. It is the job of those providing the up front money, mortgage, to make the loan based on the ability to pay and the the risk associated with the borrowers willingness to pay when things get tight, not just the ability. The sad fact is that we are now seeing that the past reluctance of banks to grant mortgages in previously red-lined areas was a prudent risk assessment.

Get a helmet pardner, you are high-speed moving the goalposts while blind to the facts.

OK - lets just ignore history from the 1930s to the late 20th century.

How do you tie a "borrowers willingness to pay when things get tight" to a geographic area? Bob won't want to pay us back even though he can afford to because he lives in THAT area with all THOSE ______. (fill in blank).

Smells more like bigotry than prudence to me.

[fishbob]

never mind

[Distracted1]

I haven't apologized for Bush. I just love the irony that this moron is outsmarting the democratic geniuses in congress at every turn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/weekinreview/02herszenhorn.html

I am not so sure it is Bush who is doing the "outsmarting"

[Skeptic Ginger]

No I just said goodnight to you. I don't care for bad manners from you or from me and I was on the verge of being very bad mannered with you. I will answer your last post when I am sure I can do it reasonably.My my, did I insult one of your heroes or something?
Reagan also deteriorated into dementia after he left office, and he had Dupuytren's contracture which is a common sign of alcoholism and you often saw Nancy and Ron holding their martinis while Nancy talked about her "Just Say no" campaign (well maybe I'm exaggerating but they were often pictured with drinks in hand).

But, comparing the two, I don't believe Reagan was dumb. He didn't talk like an uneducated fool, he obviously read a book and the paper once in a while, and he certainly had been out of the country a few times before he was elected President. He may very well have been deteriorating mentally while still in office but he wasn't stupid like Bush during most of his career. Your second paragraph defends Reagan in order to justify your absolute hatred of Bush.I'm not defending anyone. I am repeating things I observed and the conclusions I drew from those observations. And I told you, I hate them both.


Your first paragraph shows that your upbringing is lacking in regards to basic human kindness. Kindness? I should not mention the symptoms of alcoholism? Or are you concerned some people with Dupuytren's are not alcoholics and I smeared them?

I see nothing I said which should have drawn the response of you being too angry to reply. Apparently you prefer discussions that are hindered by social correctness. Too bad, that stops people from learning anything from each other.

[Texas]

[QUOTE=skeptigirl;3355845]My my, did I insult one of your heroes or something?
I'm not defending anyone. I am repeating things I observed and the conclusions I drew from those observations. And I told you, I hate them both.

QUOTE]
Well when a person expresses hatred for another then a 3rd party like me is just wasting his time trying to discuss the issue. Hatred is by definition an emotion that is not open to reasonable discussion.

[corplinx]

I am not so sure it is Bush who is doing the "outsmarting"

No way. Remember how Bush outsmarted the GOP congress into turning over their seats to a new democrat majority. He's a real mastermind.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My my, did I insult one of your heroes or something?
I'm not defending anyone. I am repeating things I observed and the conclusions I drew from those observations. And I told you, I hate them both.

Well when a person expresses hatred for another then a 3rd party like me is just wasting his time trying to discuss the issue. Hatred is by definition an emotion that is not open to reasonable discussion.Talk about twisting the discussion. I didn't just say I disliked these two leaders. I gave very specific reasons. You can address the reasons or not, but don't go whining that I have some kind of dogmatic or blind hatred for them. That is a false representation of what I posted.

[articulett]

Talk about twisting the discussion. I didn't just say I disliked these two leaders. I gave very specific reasons. You can address the reasons or not, but don't go whining that I have some kind of dogmatic or blind hatred for them. That is a false representation of what I posted.

But it is the representation that allows him to keep his faith in Bush alive.

[kallsop]

We moved from [BARF ALERT] "the most ethical administration in history" to [UGH] "compassionate conservatism". Whoop de do.

Twenty+ years from now the last 8 years will be remembered for 9/11 and an aggressive response, and efforts to rid the world of Islamists. President Bush will be judged, fairly or not, by what happened during his term and what happens after he leaves office with regard to how the global jihadis are squashed or prosper.

The real driver of the economy is the oil price. Hold on, aren't we in a "war for oil"? I don't hear that too much any more, but the bearers of doom simply MoveOn. Isn't the oil price driven by Peak Oil, or is that yet another bogus panic? Aren't we all dead in 8 years anyway according to the "A Convenient Untruth" movie?

If the oil price plunges the world into recession, we will look back on missed opportunities to drill our own oil and build nuclear power generators and transition to overnight charging hybrid vehicles, with a side helping of lack of urgency to conserve.

[fishbob]

. . . last 8 years will be remembered for 9/11 and an aggressive response . . .

That word - I do not think it means what you think it means.