Bush has sealed his loss in 2004.

[Merryprankster]

Unless something drastic happens, Bush will lose his bid for a second term. You heard it here first!

[Laughing Cow]

I think you can add Blair, Koizumi, Howard and maybe a few other names to that statement.

[joedoe]

You know, I think that there are too many stupid Australian voters for Howard to lose the next election. I mean, they still voted him in when his campaign platform was a new tax system. I mean, how stupid do you have to be - a govt only brings in a new tax system if it means more revenue for them, and more revenue for them = less money in your pocket.

Anyway, I think the outcome of the next elections will be determined by whether the war is successful and subsequent events vidicate the action.

I think Blair will lose though. I get the feeling the British people will not forget his actions.

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Unless something drastic happens, Bush will lose his bid for a second term. You heard it here first!

Would you care to explain your reasoning?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
Anyway, I think the outcome of the next elections will be determined by whether the war is successful and subsequent events vidicate the action.

Here I see a problem of definition, goals can be achieved but wars are only one method to achieve a given goal.

And thus a war cannot be successful, attaining a goal otoh.

Just my Opinion anyway.

[joedoe]

Well, there is usually a winner and a loser in a war.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
Well, there is usually a winner and a loser in a war.

Is there really??

How do you define winner and a looser?
Amount of casualities taken, property destroyed, or one party saying I had enough?

Look at WW II did Germany really loose, in the long run they gained the most by loosing.

Sorry, maybe my history lessons differed, but we were taught that there is only a cessation of violence often by mutual agreement, there cannot be a winner or a looser in a war.

[rogue]

Here I see a problem of definition, goals can be achieved but wars are only one method to achieve a given goal. Not always. Sometimes violence is the only effective method for accomplishing something.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow


Is there really??

How do you define winner and a looser?
Amount of casualities taken, property destroyed, or one party saying I had enough?

Look at WW II did Germany really loose, in the long run they gained the most by loosing.

Sorry, maybe my history lessons differed, but we were taught that there is only a cessation of violence often by mutual agreement, there cannot be a winner or a looser in a war.

Surely you can accept that there is at least a victor in a war situation?

[rogue]

there cannot be a winner or a looser in a war.
Of course there is. The Federals beat the Confederates, The Allies defeated the Axis, The Colonials defeated the British, The Soviet Union was defeated by NATO. Just because the loser isn't humiliated ala Geramany after WWI doesn't mean that they didn't lose.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe

Surely you can accept that there is at least a victor in a war situation?

Someone that declared himself a victor or was so declared by affiliated parties, yes, that I accept.

War for me is way to serious an issue to reduce it terms like victor/looser, because as far as I am concerned in a war EVERYBODY is a looser.

Have a good one.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow


Someone that declared himself a victor or was so declared by affiliated parties, yes, that I accept.

War for me is way to serious an issue to reduce it terms like victor/looser, because as far as I am concerned in a war EVERYBODY is a looser.

Have a good one.

Sure - I am not trying to trivialise war. However my original point is that if the 'allied' forces are proclaimed the victors then that will also affect the public perception of the decision to go to war, and hence effect the results of any subsequent elections. If we end up in another Vietnam situation, then that will effect the results in the other direction.

Is that clearer?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe


Sure - I am not trying to trivialise war. However my original point is that if the 'allied' forces are proclaimed the victors then that will also affect the public perception of the decision to go to war, and hence effect the results of any subsequent elections. If we end up in another Vietnam situation, then that will effect the results in the other direction.

Is that clearer?

Wrong.
The decision to go to war should ONLY be based on current circumstances & events not on past events or public perception.

Decisions need to be done objectively without any clouding from politics, etc.

War/Violence/fighting should always ONLY be the last possible resource.

Am I clearer now too?

Anyhuh, I am done with this discussion.

[joedoe]

But you are completely missing the point of my argument. The outcome of the next elections in all countries involved in the coalition will be affected by the outcome of this war. I am not arguing about whether this war is right or good or not, what I am arguing is that it will affect the political careers of all involved in the decision making. And the effect it will have is dependent on the outcome of the war.

[Laughing Cow]

Joedoe.

It will only affect the political careers of a few of the current leaders, most of which already are low in the popularity polls.

The rest of the goverment and it's policies will be unaffected.

The much bigger impact will be felt in future dealings & tradings with countries & international groups that are currently opposing the war, and that will be regardless of who will be elected next.

Political leaders come and go.

Cheers.

[joedoe]

Agreed. However, the thread is about the political longevity of the current leaders ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
Agreed. However, the thread is about the political longevity of the current leaders ;)

To which I said in my first post that it will be short.

Koizumi:
Bad economy, 84% of japanese are anit-war, he pushes for supporting US troops in the Gulf.
Popularity rating currently at 42%. dropping like a lead-brick.

Similar things I think can be said for the others, but I personally think that they won't be re-elected just because of the War but because of local & economic issues.

Cheers.

[rogue]

The much bigger impact will be felt in future dealings & tradings with countries & international groups that are currently opposing the war, and that will be regardless of who will be elected next. Only if the US looses the war. Otherwise all those countries opposing the war will quickly forget their objections and will be running to trade with the US again. No matter what, the big looser is the UN. The UNs effectivness at keeping the peace is like fielding the debate and math clubs for the homecoming game.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by rogue
Only if the US looses the war. Otherwise all those countries opposing the war will quickly forget their objections and will be running to trade with the US again.

I am inclined to disagree.

This was the case in the past when the Dollar was strong and a stable market.

A nation that wages war usually does not have that stable a market and thus many outside investors will look for a new stabler market (possible Euro or asian markets).

At the moment already many big players are preparing to shift from the US dollar to the Euro for trades(eg. OPEC).

Cheers.

P.S.: After 9/11 a lot of banks and similar in asia switched from US custodians to ones in Singapore and similar.

[CrippledAvenger]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow


I am inclined to disagree.

This was the case in the past when the Dollar was strong and a stable market.

A nation that wages war usually does not have that stable a market and thus many outside investors will look for a new stabler market (possible Euro or asian markets).

At the moment already many big players are preparing to shift from the US dollar to the Euro for trades(eg. OPEC).

Cheers.

I was under the impression that the OPEC thing was more of a general reaction towards the US's pro-Israeli stance, but then again, the source was fairly pro-Zionist, so take that with a grain of salt.

the fact of the matter is that the US is still a huge market, whether you believe the dollar will go up or down in the near future. To simply believe that the world as a whole will boycott it overnight is wishful thinking, IMO.

On another tangent, has anyone else been disappointed in Bush's refusal to address the problem of North Korea? i think that's a more justifiable war to fight, hands down.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by CrippledAvenger
To simply believe that the world as a whole will boycott it overnight is wishful thinking, IMO.

Nothing to do with conspiracy or boycott, it is a trend that started a few years back.
The Gulf war will just make it happen quicker.

Look at the asian markets alone:
Japan now exports more to China than the USA.

A few years back Asian countries sold & boughts goods to europe using the us dollar or german mark, now they use the Euro as it is often cheaper and easier to do so.

If they don't deal large amounts of good with the USA there is no need to rely on the dollar.

As for the OPEC thing, large client base in Europe, headquarters in Vienna.
Euro seems a better deal than the dollar I reckon.

Cheers.

[CrippledAvenger]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
...Look at the asian markets alone:
Japan now exports more to China than the USA.

A few years back Asian countries sold & boughts goods to europe using the us dollar or german mark, now they use the Euro as it is often cheaper and easier to do so.

If they don't deal large amounts of good with the USA there is no need to rely on the dollar.

As for the OPEC thing, large client base in Europe, headquarters in Vienna.
Euro seems a better deal than the dollar I reckon.

Cheers.

this isn't going to be the most well-thought out post I've ever done, but hey, finals week, so what do you expect?

anyhow...

re: China,

I think a better explanation for Japan's decision to export to China v. the US is simply that China (for the first time in several years) has money to spend on goods that Japan produces AND has an exponentially larger market than the US.

There's no question that eventually the US as a market force will be dwarfed by the sheer mass of India and China. But I still think that has less to do with political ideology than market forces.

I'll get back to you on the OPEC and Euro issues, as I still have 10 pages to write on Dadaist theater, but essentially, I think you're trying to force ideological motives onto situations where a simple economic explanation would suffice.

Anyhow, take all these opinons with a gigantic piece of salt. :D

[Laughing Cow]

CrippledAvenger:

FYI:

OPEC and EURO (http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm)

This is directly from the OPEC, it talks also about the Euro and US Dollar role in the
global economy.

Cheers.

[Laughing Cow]

Energy

Cóilín Nunan: Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq

This document is also available in Word and PDF formats.

It will not come as news to anyone that the US dominates the world economically and militarily. But the exact mechanisms by which American hegemony has been established and maintained are perhaps less well understood than they might be. One tool used to great effect has been the dollar, but its efficacy has recently been under threat since Europe introduced the euro.

The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.

But the more dollars there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free.

Since so many foreign-owned dollars are not spent on American goods and services, the US is able to run a huge trade deficit year after year without apparently any major economic consequences. The most recently published figures, for example, show that in November of last year US imports were worth 48% more than US exports1. No other country can run such a large trade deficit with impunity. The financial media tell us the US is acting as the ‘consumer of last resort’ and the implication is that we should be thankful, but a more enlightening description of this state of affairs would be to say that it is getting a massive interest-free loan from the rest of the world.

While the US’ position may seem inviolable, one should remember that the more you have, the more you have to lose. And recently there have been signs of how, for the first time in a long time, the US may be beginning to lose.

One of the stated economic objectives, and perhaps the primary objective, when setting up the euro was to turn it into a reserve currency to challenge the dollar so that Europe too could get something for nothing.

This however would be a disaster for the US. Not only would they lose a large part of their annual subsidy of effectively free goods and services, but countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the US currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more and as increasing numbers of those holding dollars began to spend them, the US would have to start paying its debts by supplying in goods and services to foreign countries, thus reducing American living standards. As countries and businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the US property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst. The Federal Reserve would no longer be able to print more money to reflate the bubble, as it is currently openly considering doing, because, without lots of eager foreigners prepared to mop them up, a serious inflation would result which, in turn, would make foreigners even more reluctant to hold the US currency and thus heighten the crisis.

There is though one major obstacle to this happening: oil. Oil is not just by far the most important commodity traded internationally, it is the lifeblood of all modern industrialised economies. If you don’t have oil, you have to buy it. And if you want to buy oil on the international markets, you usually have to have dollars. Until recently all OPEC countries agreed to sell their oil for dollars only. So long as this remained the case, the euro was unlikely to become the major reserve currency: there is not a lot of point in stockpiling euros if every time you need to buy oil you have to change them into dollars. This arrangement also meant that the US effectively part-controlled the entire world oil market: you could only buy oil if you had dollars, and only one country had the right to print dollars - the US.

If on the other hand OPEC were to decide to accept euros only for its oil (assuming for a moment it were allowed to make this decision), then American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its oil from the Middle East would think it wise to convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets (Japan is the major subsidiser of the US because it holds so many dollar investments). The US on the other hand, being the world's largest oil importer would have, to run a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to be achieved at a time when its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its domestic supplies of oil and gas were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion.

The purely economic arguments for OPEC converting to the euro, at least for a while, seem very strong. The Euro-zone does not run a huge trade deficit nor is it heavily endebted to the rest of the world like the US and interest rates in the Euro-zone are also significantly higher. The Euro-zone has a larger share of world trade than the US and is the Middle East’s main trading partner. And nearly everything you can buy for dollars you can also buy for euros - apart, of course, from oil. Furthermore, if OPEC were to convert their dollar assets to euro assets and then require payment for oil in Euros, their assets would immediately increase in value, since oil importing countries would be forced to also convert part of their assets, driving the prices up. For OPEC, backing the euro would be a self-fulfilling prophesy. They could then at some later date move to some other currency, perhaps back to the dollar, and again make huge profits.

But of course it is not a purely economic decision.

cont ...

[Laughing Cow]

cont ...


So far only one OPEC country has dared switch to the euro: Iraq, in November 2002,3. There is little doubt that this was a deliberate attempt by Saddam to strike back at the US, but in economic terms it has also turned out to have been a huge success: at the time of Iraq's conversion the euro was worth around 83 US cents but it is now worth over $1.05. There may however be other consequences to this decision.

One other OPEC country has been talking publicly about possible conversion to the euro since 1999: Iran2,4, a country which has since been included in the George W. Bush’s ‘axis of evil’.

A third OPEC country which has recently fallen out with the US government is Venezuela and it too has been showing disloyalty to the dollar. Under Hugo Chavez’s rule, Venezuela has established barter deals for trading its oil with 12 Latin American countries as well as Cuba. This means that the US is missing out on its usual subsidy and might help explain the American wish to see the back of Chavez. At the OPEC summit in September 2000, Chavez delivered to the OPEC heads of state the report of the 'Interrnational Seminar on the Future of Energy’, a conference called by Chavez earlier that year to examine the future supplies of both fossil and renewable energies. One of the two key recommendations of the report was that ‘OPEC take advantage of high-tech electronic barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers’5, i.e. OPEC should avoid using both the dollar and the euro for many transactions.

And last April, a senior OPEC representative gave a public speech in Spain during Spain’s presidency of the EU during which he made clear that though OPEC had as yet no plans to make oil available for euros, it was an option that was being considered and which could well be of economic benefit to many OPEC countries, particularly those of the Middle East6.

As oil production is now in decline in most oil producing countries, the importance of the remaining large oil producers, particularly those of the Middle East, is going to grow and grow in years to come7.

Iraq, whose oil production has been severely curtailed by sanctions, is one of a very small number of countries which can help ease this looming oil shortage. Europe, like most of the rest of the world, wishes to see a peaceful resolution of the current US-Iraqi tensions and a gradual lifting of the sanctions - this would certainly serve its interests best. But as Iraqi oil is denominated in euros, allowing it to become more widely available at present could loosen the dollar stranglehold and possibly do more damage than good to US economic health.

All of this is bad news for the US economy and the dollar. The fear for Washington will be that not only will the future price of oil not be right, but the currency might not be right either. Which perhaps helps explain why the US is increasingly turning to its second major tool for dominating world affairs: military force.

REFERENCES

1. Anon., ‘Trade Deficit Surges to a Record High’, Reuters, (January 17, 2003), http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4970891.htm.
2. Recknagel, Charles, ‘Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro’, Radio Free Europe (November 1, 2000), http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp.
3. Anon., ‘A Look At The World's Economy’, CBS Worldwide Inc., (December 22, 2000), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/12/22/2000/main259203.shtml.
4. Anon., ‘Iran may switch to euro for crude sale payments’, Alexander Oil and Gas, (September 5, 2002), http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm23638.htm.
5. Hazel Henderson, ‘Globocop v. Venezuela’s Chavez: Oil, Globalization and Competing Visions of Development’, InterPress Service, (April 2002), http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Globocop%20v.%20Chavez.htm.
6. Javad Yarjani, ‘The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill’, (April 14, 2002), http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm.
7. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil, Newsletter 26, (February 2003), http://www.asponews.org.

FURTHER READING

* William Clark, ‘The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth’, (January 2003), http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html.

That much for politics and market forces not being linked.

[Laughing Cow]

Last link and I am out of here.

Analysis of OPEC & Euro (http://www.888webtoday.com/joyce8.html)

Take it how you will.

IMO, this type of subjects say a lot about what is happening in the political arena and inter-country relationships.

It's all about the money in the long run.
;) ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Stumblefist.

Amazing. Your insight is absolutely stunning and totally WRONG.

Obviously you CAN'T read either, or got the comprehension of a 5yr old.



Similar things I think can be said for the others, but I personally think that they won't be re-elected just because of the War but because of local & economic issues.



But than I guess you forgot your medication again this morning.

Lets wait and see WHO will get elected come the next elections.

Seeya.

[Richie]

I agree with you guys on Koizumi's bad points, but he probably isn't going anywhere for some time.

[Laughing Cow]

Stumblefist.

You ARE on my ignore list, but ocassionally I still read your posts to make me laugh and remind me why I don't like some people.

Gotten over your paranoia yet, or still seeing anti-americans everywhere.
You know they got medication for that now.
;) ( I prefer full-frontal lobotomy, but some consider it extreme)

I guess Howard, Blair and Koizumi got outstanding popularity ratings too and are guaranteed re-elections.

So what don't you disagree with the "OPEC & Euro" issue??
Or did the OPEC lie in the official statement I posted, or any of the other facts quoted wrong too and anti-american.

I guess you were one of the PRO-War protesters that put a rifle into their sons hand and keeps telling how him bad everybody outside the USA is and that only guns can give freedom.

I might peek at one of your posts again just to make me laugh.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Richie
I agree with you guys on Koizumi's bad points, but he probably isn't going anywhere for some time.

I am afraid that might be true, OTOH, it could be worse if Ishihara ran in the next election.

[Merryprankster]

Vapour,

My reasoning is this:

Bush did not receive a mandate from the people. As is so frequently pointed out, he did not win the popular vote. I don't have a problem with this--the system worked as it was designed to, but nonetheless, he hardly had a mandate.

Win or lose, right or wrong, Bush's stance on Iraq has polarized the nation--you aren't hearing too much about it right now, but the break is real, it's there, and if the Democrats are halfway smart, they will use it as leverage.

Ralph Nader, or a similar third party candidate, will be unable to command a fraction of the votes as last time. Big issues stomp little candidates and work in the established parties favor. The ability to play spoiler will disappear.

Historically, war presidents have gotten a large ratings boost--we tend to rally round the Oval Office. That's as it should be. However, that is ONLY true when Americans feel the war is morally justifiable, and while there is wide support, there is also wide dissension. "War weariness," is a very real phenomenon, and it is far more likely that those who are ambivalent about the war now will wish it would "go away," in a few months. Once again, the moderates and undecided are the swing votes. Those against the war will stay against it. Those for it will stay for it. But those who are unsure or weakly supportive are more likely to develop anti-war feelings rather than pro-war feelings. Add a stiff dose of anti-American sentiment from the world abroad and I think you'll find it even more probable that what I just outlined will happen.

Finally, this administration has a flaw that would be annoying in "normal," times, but in my opinion fatal in high-profile times: It starts from a basic end-point premise and WORKS BACKWARDS to determine the underpinnings.

Take tax cuts--Originally, we needed tax cuts because we had surpluses and that just meant the government overburdened the populace. The message was "give the surplus back to the people." Now, with impending deficits, the message is "tax cuts stimulate economic growth. We need a tax cut because that's the only way to get things going."

The takeaway for anybody paying an ounce of attention is that "Tax cuts are good for what ails ya." Now, nobody really paid much attention to that, and the Democrats did a ****-poor job of making an issue out of it because 9/11 provided a great deal of cover--the media was busy so the message would have been lost.

Now, we have Iraq--a high profile situation in which THE EXACT SAME THING is taking place. "We need to go into Iraq because they are really harboring terrorists." When that looked like it might not be quite as strong a reason as originally thought, "We need to go into Iraq because he continues to violate UN resolutions and poses a threat." The political takeaway in this case is "Going into Iraq is good for what ails ya."

This little habit is going to get him in trouble in 2004 because Iraq is high profile. We're already hearing people say "Hey, why ARE we going in?" People are confused as to the Admins reasoning, and the media is picking up on that. And politically, that's bad.

Now, couple that with a small sense of timing--when all this builds, the Dems'll come BACK to the Tax issue and say "hey, he did it here TOO, and HERE, and HERE, and oh, yeah, some over here too." The media have already picked up on the "inconsistency," bit, so this is another add-on to that message.

It's going to make the administration look inconsistent. Staying on message isn't just about hammering home the same point. It's also about ensuring your reasoning is sound enough that you don't have to constantly change it, otherwise, it doesn't actually look like you're staying on message.

His lack of a mandate coupled with proper exploitation of this little habit is going to cause him to loose. It may not be by a big margin, but I don't think he'll make it past one term.

[Frank Exchange]

Jeezly, people, it is spelt LOSE! L-O-S-E!

I am LOSING the argument.
There may or may not be a LOSER in a war.
Some you win, and some you LOSE.

However, in Japan, the girls wear LOOSE socks.


:) :) :D :) :)

[dwid]

I'm inclined to agree with you but for different reasons.

The "rally round the flag" effect will almost certainly take place as far as I'm concerned. The public is not divided enough about the war to blunt this effect. However, I think the bulk of the war will be over relatively quickly, so Bush 2 will be pretty much in the same boat as Bush 1. He'll be facing election with a lousy economy after more or less winning a war that is too short to stimulate said economy, but costly enough to create a big budget deficit over the short term.

Right or wrong, the American people blame the president for economic conditions that are largely out of his control. I guess that's the rub of being a chief executive. Ultimately you're seen as responsible for everything.

Anyway, I see his approval rating going up up up over the short term and then sinking as we get closer to election time as the Democratic candidate focuses his energies on domestic issues.

Just my 2 cents....

[Suntzu]

Bush has sealed his loss in 2004. he never 'won' in the 1st place...

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Stumblefist
When people hate they say anything. They don't care about the truth of anything.
..
So I'm wrong LC? Your purpose of posting is NOT to hate and get everyone else to hate with you?
....Naw i don't think so.
A five year old child can see through you.
Your message is the message of a five year old child.
...
"Baw Boohoo...I hate America"
Who cares? Read the news and weep.
...
"Lets wait and see WHO will get elected come the next elections."
...
Naw, lets wait and see who gets blown to bits and who stays alive.
:p :p :p

You know, I disagree with a lot of LaughingCow's positions, but he clearly outlines them and provides links to news articles and such supporting them. It's quite possible to debate him on a logical and factual basis.

When you respond to a lengthy series of posts giving extensive reasons for a position with "Blah blah blah, you suck", you just make yourself look like a ****ing moron.


Getting more onto topic... Good post and good reasoning from MerryPrankster, and good addition from dwid.

Who do you think is most likely to wind up as the Democratic candidate? So far the person who's impressed me most in interviews is Howard Dean, but I haven't been following things closely enough to get a feel for how likely he is to win the primaries.

[Suntzu]

Jesse 'The Body" for Prez… we need a good old fashion azz kicker… someone just to reach across the Diplomacy table and bady slam the enemy right than and there… Bush is a pus… and these frail azz dudes the Dems are tryin to pump up… pah lezz… skinny lil bastids... all the geeks from highschool are tryin to take over the world... :mad:

sorry guys… I've been up since 5 this morning….

[Black Jack]

Merry,

I will take that bet, last I checked the MSNBC polls this morning over 60% of America was with him, I say he gets a second term.

From what I have seen so far I know he is getting my vote. It's kinda nice to have a commander and chief you can be proud of instead of that fat **** humping ******* before him.

[Suntzu]

It's kinda nice to have a commander and chief you can be proud of... a semi literate coke head… all righty than…

[Black Jack]

Suntzu,

Go give cunnilingus to a poodle.:rolleyes:

Stumblefist,

Don't worry about that guy. He is C-R-A-Z-Y with two shakes and a snap.

[Suntzu]

:eek: WooOoooOoo :rolleyes:

[dwid]

I will take that bet, last I checked the MSNBC polls this morning over 60% of America was with him, I say he gets a second term.

If the war drags out long enough that it's still going on as election season comes up in 2004, then I'll give him even odds - only because the tendency to not want to "change horses in midstream" may carry the day. I suspect the bulk of fighting will be over rather quickly, though, in which case George Jr. will find himself in much the same place as George Sr. was in '92.

60% is not that big a deal. People can sense that war is imminent. Once it gets hot and heavy, I wouldn't be surprised to see his approval rating hit 70% or more. It just won't last once the war ends and the people's attention shifts to the economy.

[dwid]

Who do you think is most likely to wind up as the Democratic candidate? So far the person who's impressed me most in interviews is Howard Dean, but I haven't been following things closely enough to get a feel for how likely he is to win the primaries.

I am clueless at this point in this regard. I think a repeat of Al Gore would probably do rather well, but there's no way that's going to happen, as he's taken himself out of the running last I heard. There doesn't seem to be a single standout right now.

[Suntzu]

Question - do any of u guys get called for one of those polls… I swear Gallop and whoever else never asked me sh!t… who are these 60% :confused:...

[dwid]

Question - do any of u guys get called for one of those polls… I swear Gallop and whoever else never asked me sh!t… who are these 60%

Reputable survey agencies like gallup typically do random digit dialing polls by telephone. To be representative, the response rate, or percent of people called who participate in the poll has to be relatively high (like 80%). In the case of a nationwide poll, call centers spread throughout the United States will use the same poll in a number of different areas. If you've never been asked to participate in a poll, then you're either part of the 20% that they weren't able to reach or you just haven't been included in a sample yet.

[Suntzu]

yep... sounds accurate to me...

[Chang Style Novice]

Fatherdog -

I like Dean a lot, too, but he's an unapolagetically left leaning Northerner, which means if he's nominated (which I consider highly unlikely since the DNC is chasing the RNC to the right) he's going to throw the entire south, pretty much. I don't see him winning unless there's a tremendous Bush backlash and maybe someone like Perot splits the republican vote (which I also don't see happening.)

Also, I have years of experience working in phone-poll calling centers, although not with Gallup but some of their competitors. While samples are random, response is not. You are much more likely to find willing respondents who are older, unemployed, and living alone. We try to screen demographics to keep a better and more representative sample, but many interviewers cheat (there are quotas to be met.) Also, whoever sponsors a poll gets to write the questions, and you can write a question in such a way that it almost forces the answer you want.

Polls are not 100% trustworthy

[dwid]

yep... sounds accurate to me...

Suntzu, care to elaborate. What I provided is a very brief explanation of the system. Obviously there is good and bad survey research, but you'd probably be surprised at just how scientifically rigorous the good stuff is.

Still, I'd be curious to hear what you are specifically suspicious about.

[Suntzu]

In all reality… I'm just being an azz… I know how this stuff works… well from what little I remember from my whatever-the-name class… I just have very little faith in the system and am tripped out by some folks blind faith… I just take it all with a grain of salt...

FWIW… when Bubba was in office… life was fun… had money in my pocket and sh!t wasn't blowing up… Dubya on the other hand… came into to the game shady… sh!t start blowin up… everybody's chicken little with their duct tape… and my pockets aint the same… now is it his fault... who knows... but he make a perfect scapegoat... and he IS an illiterate coke head...

[Black Jack]

Yeah....the pres of the united states is an illiterate coke head and I am the white reincarnation of sammy davis junior. Last I checked I don't have a glass eye or singing talent.

Dude....back to the poodle.:p :p :D

Most people who think Dubya was a good president had low expectations. I bet the light goes off on him as being one of the worst president this nation has ever seen.

[NYerRoman]

Much agreed with the thread.
Glad to see people agree on this thing.

[Suntzu]

oh yeah… thank you black jack… thanks to your superb ability to articulate a sound argument… I have now seen the light… Bush is the angel on my shoulder… my ever present guardian angel… if I was never told to go suck on a poodles clit… I would have never know what a true blessing it is to have good ol' George and his wonderful press staff(they are REALLY d@mn good actually) do all of my thinking for me...
:rolleyes:
I guess I'll go practice mah bu stance for 3 hours…

[Black Jack]

Suntzu....I could of indicated the back route on the dog instead.;)

Here is a brief bio on a man who you say is illiterate.

Went to and graduated from Yale University. Accepted into the elite Skull & Bones society. Went on to be a F-102 fighter pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. From there he got a Masters of Business Administration from Harvard.

Did a little business....like being the managing general partner for the Texas Rangers....from there he was the Governor of Texas for 6 years.

Then became the commander and chief of the most powerfull nation in the world.

Yeah....sounds like a illterate coke head to me. :rolleyes:

How do you stack up to those creds?

[Water Dragon]

Going back a few pages, I will explain why Laughing Cow is incorrect in regards to the dollar. The US Dollar began it’s rise in 1982, the start of the last Bull Market. In a nutshell, here’s what happened:

US markets begin to produce. During this time, the Japanese economy falls into a severe recession. The economy begins to move even faster beginning in the mid-90’s. Foreign investors see this and what to take part in the action. In order to take part in the action, foreign investors need US Dollars. Demand for the dollar increases because of this, hence, the rise in the US Dollar.

Flash Forward to 2003. It turns out that the US Economy was in the middle of the largest speculative bubble ever! The bottom falls out, stocks tank and continue to fall for 3 years. Foreign Investors see their investments tank and decide to get out of the US market. Since they are not investing in the US market anymore, their demand for the dollar decreases. They begin to trade the dollar either back into their own country’s monetary units or into the currency of whatever country they are investing in now. This softens the dollar while strengthening other currencies.

Please note that this has nothing to do with war or terrorism. It’s a very simple case of supply and demand. The type of thing you learn in Econ 101.

[Suntzu]

how do u???

get off his nutz... stop living vicariously thru George... get your own life...

and for the record… degree in Accounting from a wonderful HBCU… could care less about belonging to some frat… and I put my training to the test…

but I hope George's accomplishments help u feel better about yourself…
:rolleyes:

[Black Jack]

So to answer the question...you don't even come close.

You said the guy was illiterate and I did not. A comment which is untrue to say the least and just plain stupid. The real fact is like most liberals you just don't like the man himself. It's a personal and emotional thing and not one of logic.

[CrippledAvenger]

WD said it better than I ever could, sleep deprived or not.

While I don't want to boil everything down to economics, I think there's a lot more to be said for pointing to economics as the motivator for a good chunk of this matter.

on that note, I have a friend who theorizes that German and French resistence to the war is almost purely economic in nature, as opposed to this moral opposition. On the other hand, a war probably WOULD be in the US's financial interests...

personally, I just wish someone could make a conclusive case for or against the **** thing. I hate this grey area.

edited for sleep deprived spelling errors.

[Suntzu]

and obviously u don’t measure up either… and unlike you… George is not my measuring stick for success… OMG he called me a liberal… the hearbreak… the scorn… I have never felt such shame…

I know 5th graders that read and articulate on a higher level than that illiterate coke head

the entertainment value of this witty back and forth is lost on me now… good luck on your Yale degree…

It's a personal and emotional thing and not one of logic. dude… logic is a masculine trait… and judging by the amount of lip service you're giving good ol' George… well… lets just say you're coming off real 'emotional'…

[Water Dragon]

And since you're sleep deprived, the next question. Why is the softening of the dollar most likely a very good thing for the US economy?

[CrippledAvenger]

because it hurts less when you get smacked with a sack of them?

(C'mon, man, I'm a humanities kinda guy. Gimme a question I can answer :D )

Dunno. Answer please?

[SLC]

"...the entertainment value of this witty back and forth is lost on me now… good luck on your Yale degree…"


First blood to you, Black Jack. LOL!! When they get whiny you know they'er hurt. ;)



"I just wish someone could make a conclusive case for or against the **** thing. I hate this grey area."

Life is grey, sorry. You take what you have and make the best choices you can.

Only 20/20 hindsight changes it to black and white.

[CrippledAvenger]

Originally posted by SLC

Life is grey, sorry. You take what you have and make the best choices you can.

Only 20/20 hindsight changes it to black and white.

let me rephrase that a bit.

I know any decision made pro- or anti- war is going to warrant a significant portion of guesswork. I just haven't heard a really compelling reason yet why we should invade Iraq instead of North Korea.

I just want one of the hawks to make a logical case to me instead of insisting that a war is what I "should" do. Am I making sense?

[Suntzu]

WD - u made me laff with that one…… but really… I sucked at ECON… the mechanical nature of ACCT was more to my nature… but the real short answer is… the business cycle has nowhere else to go but up… eventually…

and as a side note… *I* never put blame on the crackhead… I said he was a easy scapegoat… u fu(kin conservative
see how much that hurt...

[Suntzu]

First blood to you, Black Jack. LOL!! When they get whiny you know they'er hurt. actually BJ(how appropriate) started with the personal attack… and as fun as a good trolling match can be… whatever…

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by CrippledAvenger

Dunno. Answer please?

Think about it. A soft dollar means that the European can now buy more American goods per Euro than he could before. Instead of getting 2 cheeseburgers for a Euro, he can now get 3. Everyone loves a deal. So the Europeans start buying more cheeseburgers,and the Americans start producing more cheeseburgers to meet this demand. Somebody has to make those cheeseburgers, right? So the US begins to hire more cheese burger makers. These newly employed cheese burger makers start spending more money on domestic goods, more people get hired, and the cycle continues. All because a bunch of French got a deal on cheeseburgers.

--edit--

Sun Tzu is correct. But not in regards to Bush. Bush is an idiot, not illiterate. Big difference.

[Suntzu]

yeah... thats what i said :D...

WD - dude what are u doing agreeing(albeit correcting me) with me… they might call u a :gasp: liberal… u may never beable to show your face in a Starbucks located near you…

[Suntzu]

u gawdd@mn liberal…
:p :D

[Water Dragon]

BlackJack already knows I'm a liberal. After all, I grew up poor had to put myself thru college with a wife and son. And I had to earn all my grades as well.

[ZIM]

Think about it. A soft dollar means that the European can now buy more American goods per Euro than he could before. Instead of getting 2 cheeseburgers for a Euro, he can now get 3. Everyone loves a deal. So the Europeans start buying more cheeseburgers,and the Americans start producing more cheeseburgers to meet this demand. Somebody has to make those cheeseburgers, right? So the US begins to hire more cheese burger makers. These newly employed cheese burger makers start spending more money on domestic goods, more people get hired, and the cycle continues. All because a bunch of French got a deal on cheeseburgers.

Well, thats a little naive, but not totally useless, so I'll hand that to you.

Higher demand also leads to overproduction, which -> higher pricing due to limited markets available which -> recurrent stagnation in economies, inflation, overvaluation of currencies, unemployment. You know, 'shake outs'.

But I'm just singin' along with the Right Wing now, like a good American.

"...In the Big Rock Candy Mountains,
There's a land that's fair and bright,
Where the handouts grow on bushes
And you sleep out every night.
Where the boxcars all are empty
And the sun shines every day
And the birds and the bees
And the cigarette trees
The lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains...."

[Laughing Cow]

Think about it. A soft dollar means that the European can now buy more American goods per Euro than he could before. Instead of getting 2 cheeseburgers for a Euro, he can now get 3. Everyone loves a deal. So the Europeans start buying more cheeseburgers,and the Americans start producing more cheeseburgers to meet this demand. Somebody has to make those cheeseburgers, right? So the US begins to hire more cheese burger makers. These newly employed cheese burger makers start spending more money on domestic goods, more people get hired, and the cycle continues. All because a bunch of French got a deal on cheeseburgers.

In a simplistic, ideal way you are correct.

Problem is when the other countries either won't or can't buy those products, than you get the situation that Zim mentioned.

Your cheesburgers also need to be competitive on the foreign markets too. (cheaper, better quality, etc.)

Look at the losses and cuts that many companies like McDonald and Starbucks had to do in many countries.

Agreed a soft dollar is good for non-americans the same way a soft yen is good for non-japanese.

Proplem being that if the currency goes too soft or too hard, boom goes the economy.

[Laughing Cow]

As for Bush and the other leaders being re-elected.

I see it this way:

"If they got a good, strong economy, good social services back home than people will care less about the war and it's outcome.
But if their wallets & jobs get hurt because of the war and it's outcome they will be less likely to re-elect the leader that took them into the war."

Seeya.

[Water Dragon]

A little naive? And what exactly is that you do for a living?

Higher demand also leads to overproduction,

Higher demands leads to higher output which MAY lead to higher INVENTORY levels, but only if demand is less than supply. Since a company is in business to make a profit, they will monitor their inventory levels in an attempt to sell all merchandise while keeping an adequate supply on hand to fill new orders. Overproduction is a result of an unseen change in demand levels.

which -> higher pricing due to limited markets available

Assuming inflation is flat, price increase are a result of inadequate supply. This means that there are more people that want an item then there are items available. The free market will drive up price in an attempet to secure these scarce items, but only to a certain point. After this point has been reached, consumers simply wont spend more money for the same good as it has become too expensive.

which -> recurrent stagnation in economies, inflation, overvaluation of currencies, unemployment. You know, 'shake outs'.

This is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start. Let's just say please don't confuse the effect with the cause.

[Black Jack]

WaterDragon,

Just curious...why does that automaticaly make you a liberal?

[ZIM]

*shrug*

"...In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
All the cops have wooden legs
And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth
And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs
The farmers' trees are full of fruit
And the barns are full of hay
Oh I'm bound to go
Where there ain't no snow
Where the rain don't fall
The winds don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains..."

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Black Jack
WaterDragon,

Just curious...why does that automaticaly make you a liberal?

It doesn't. But I knew it'd get a response out of you :p

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow

In a simplistic, ideal way you are correct.

Problem is when the other countries either won't or can't buy those products, than you get the situation that Zim mentioned.

Your cheesburgers also need to be competitive on the foreign markets too. (cheaper, better quality, etc.)

Look at the losses and cuts that many companies like McDonald and Starbucks had to do in many countries.


OK, hold up now. Now we're adding in a whole lot of variables into the mix. I like to keep it simp[le to try ands illustrate a point.

Now we're getting into a situation where we need to consider not only foreign competition, but also the strength of individual foreign economies. You're on the right track, but I still think you're missing the forest for the trees.

It's not really war or politics that will have any effect. It's a lot more about the shift of manufacturing jobs to developing nations, and even the shift of high level service positions to foreign countries. An excellant example is the huge amount of consulting business that is currently going to India. The implications are huge and not good news for those of us in the US of A. But it's just as important to understand the why as the whats. Otherwise, how will you know which news is really news?

[Black Jack]

Jerk;)

[Laughing Cow]

WD.

Unfortunately we live in a complex world with complex issues.

These days there are MANY MANY factors affecting markets and economies, war and politics are among them.

Look at the stock market and it's movements in the last week and especially today alone.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow

Look at the stock market and it's movements in the last week and especially today alone.

Totally unimportant. That's short term investor psychology at work. The markets are EXTREMELY overvalued right now, even after 3 years of losses. Earnings are currently at 1995 levels, which justifies a DJIA of around 4300. The Dow closed at 8194 today. Markets still have a long way to fall to come in line with earnings.

That's what I'm talking about. If this interests you, learn the fundamentals. It'll put you ahead of 90 % of people in the game. $hit, I'm still on the low end as far as my understanding goes, but I made 12 % off my investents last year. I'll be way up this year as well as soon as this Bear Market Rally busts and everyone flows back into gold. Why? Gold is still undervalued. Some say as much as 25 % even on top of last years gains.

[Laughing Cow]

WD.

I am not a player on any market, heck, I even refused stock options of my company when they were offered and glad about it as they dropped considerably.
;)

OTOH, all of my clients are banks, trustbank, insurance companies and so on that deal internationally and there are some trends I am observing that might not be visible to outsiders.

Hence some of the links I posted above.

I see the Euro as a real danger to the US Dollar and the US economy, maybe not right now but in few years if things go right ...

And I still say re-election of any politicla leader depends on domestic and economic issues more than anything.
Just to go back onto topic.

Cheers.

[yuanfen]

I dont visit here much. But MP's lead post on this thread IMO
is on target- for a whole bag of reasons.

[diego]

Originally posted by ghthomason
"I did denounce it. I de-I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry."


where the fuq is that from?.:)

[David Jamieson]

"I did denounce it. I de-I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry."

that one sealed it for me actually.

the dude ...well, nevermind. if you're for him then you're for him I guess. You can't legislate against stupidity.

cheers

[diego]

Michael Moore's Letter To George W. Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blessings and Peace,

Received this today. Moore, of course, did the significant and critical documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." If you haven't seen it i urge you to do so.

Respectfully with peace,
------------------------------------------------------------

A Letter to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
Michael Moore,
March 17, 2003

Viewed on March 19, 2003

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC

Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have
to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I
gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take
much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to
share with you:
1. There is virtually no one in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho
to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America
and try to find five people who are passionate about wanting to kill Iraqis. You won't find them!
Why? 'Cause no Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to
do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived
as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!
2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your
weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and
none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: Two and a half million jobs lost
since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their
retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and
on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to
improve.
3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with
Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans
among them.
4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a Sin. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie
Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you
are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just
like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.
5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only one (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted
son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your
twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's
see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war
effort. What's that you say? You don't think so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can
be pretty **** annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as
America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it
for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. --
spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of
Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a
Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies?
And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself,
straight, no b.s. Quit ****ing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You
know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of
the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

Well, cheer up -- there is good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will
be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to
protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity
polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now
and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the
way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a
good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!
But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start
thinking like that! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

[Budokan]

Moore's comedy and satirical viewpoints are always refreshing. :D

[diego]

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only one (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted
son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your
twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's
see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war
effort. What's that you say? You don't think so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

[Royal Dragon]

Two and a half million jobs lost
since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their
retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and

For all you Chart watchers out there, I belive that the Stock market (Dow in perticular) formed a MAJOR top, and broke down below it signalling a new bear trend a good NINE MONTHS before the election of George Bush.

Yes, that's right Billy boy was in command when it happend. Bush and company have done a good job of slowing the downslide. If it had not been for all the intrest rate cuts, we would have had a full blown crash. Anyone with even a BASIC understanding of chart analysis would clearly recognise the Head & Shoulders chart formation, and what a close below it's neclkline means.

Face it, the stock market was in an irreperible slump before Bush was even elected, let alone took office. So I don't want to hear how you "Think & Feel" about Bush and the economy if you can't openly and honestly admit Slick Willie is to blame because it was his watch when it turned. Once it turns, it's too late to do anything but smooth the ride a bit, and Bush and company did a good job of it.

I can only imagine what would have happened if Goore was in command. We'd be in a full blow depression right now becaue he would have raised Taxes and sunk us faster.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Yes, that's right Billy boy was in command when it happend.
...
Face it, the stock market was in an irreperible slump before Bush was even elected, let alone took office. So I don't want to hear how you "Think & Feel" about Bush and the economy if you can't openly and honestly admit Slick Willie is to blame because it was his watch when it turned.

The original point of this thread wasn't who's to blame for anything, but why Bush won't get reelected.

The average voter doesn't care who was in office when the slump started. All they care about is that Bush is in office now, and the economy is lousy. See: Gulf War I, Aftermath.

Whether it's fair or not, Bush is going to get it in the neck, because the economy is, almost without exception, what makes or breaks Presidents.

[logic]

In The summer of 2001 Bush adminastation gave me 300 dollars.

January 1st 2002 I got an extra 15 dollars in every PAY CHECK, (I thought my boss gave me a raise) BUT my co-workers said no we all got a TAX CUT (and it's still the same cut today) They said look at your F.I.C.A. statement and sure enough it was the biggest Tax cut I ever got.
(when I remind the liberals at work about this they seem to have forgotten until I refresh there memory)

Now Bush is talking about another 300 dollars for me this summer again!
(I Love this Guy)

NO other president has EVER done this for the averge Joe.

Oh yeah, It Did NOT effect my tax return at all.

Thank you Gearge Bush.

Bush has the votes of all my friends and I in 2004
Plus 60% of the CNN poled American public.

[Vapour]

Originally posted by logic
In The summer of 2001 Bush adminastation gave me 300 dollars.

January 1st 2002 I got an extra 15 dollars in every PAY CHECK, (I thought my boss gave me a raise) BUT my co-workers said no we all got a TAX CUT (and it's still the same cut today) They said look at your F.I.C.A. statement and sure enough it was the biggest Tax cut I ever got.
(when I remind the liberals at work about this they seem to have forgotten until I refresh there memory)

Now Bush is talking about another 300 dollars for me this summer again!
(I Love this Guy)

NO other president has EVER done this for the averge Joe.

Oh yeah, It Did NOT effect my tax return at all.

Thank you Gearge Bush.

Bush has the votes of all my friends and I in 2004
Plus 60% of the CNN poled American public.

If he run deficit, as he is doing it right now, you are going to get taxed more in the future because of interest payment.

But then, by that time, he may not be in the office so someone have to raise the tax or raid governemtn coffin and take the blame. It is beautiful how politics works. You can always blame someone else.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Vapour

If he run deficit, as he is doing it right now, you are going to get taxed more in the future because of interest payment.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv8c1.html
"Until the advent of the 'Keynesian revolution' in the middle years of this century, the fiscal conduct of the American Republic was informed by this Smithian principle of fiscal responsibility: Government should not spend without imposing taxes; and government should not place future generations in bondage by deficit financing of public outlays designed to provide temporary and short-lived benefits. With the completion of the Keynesian revolution, these time-tested principles of fiscal responsibility were consigned to the heap of superstitious nostrums that once stifled enlightened political-fiscal activism."

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/keynes/deficit.htm
"By the Keynesian multiplier, deficit-financed government spending will lead to a rise in output which will generate the very savings necessary to back it up."

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=8487&mode=nested
"Most economists think two factors are keeping the economy out of recession - for now: very low interest rates and the administration's unintended deficit-spending... Ironically enough, that unintended deficit may save the country from a steeper slump."

http://www.iea-macro-economics.org/int-ec-sci-kmod.html
"In the Keynesian explanation of the multiplier effect, exogenous investment (or government deficit spending) injects additional spending into the circular flow of income and spending. Then, in successive spending/income transactions, each recipient (on average) spends the propensity to consume portion of the additional income and saves the rest. This process continues until the initial investment spending has increased the total flow of income and spending (GNP) by (theoretically) the reciprocal of the saving rate. The economy has then reached a new ex post equilibrium GNP where aggregate saving is again equal to aggregate investment, at the higher level."



http://david.snu.edu/~dwilliam.fs/s98/keynes/theory.htm
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pkt/

[GLW]

So logic is saying that his vote is worth $300 in a onetime shot and $15 per paycheck.

If I were you logic, I would raise my price for selling my vote...at least get a six pack once a month thrown in for good measure.

[logic]

I need to find a better job.:D ;)

[fa_jing]

So what if GW isn't going to get re-elected? He's served his purpose already - unlike some other presidents who need at least 5 years to get anything done. He may even make a good scapegoat too. He's just a figurehead.

BTW, I too went to Yale, graduated with a degree in Math & Physics, 3.1 GPA (should have been 3.3 but I failed History of Jazz in my senior year). First of all, I think Skull and Bones and other secret societies suck. My friend took several p!sses on their doorstep. GW is a "Legacy," someone with no special skills who gets in 'cause his father is an Alum. I think. Still, I'd say that of late, he has picked up some skills that he probably didn't have at the time.

[BeiTangLang]

I'm voing for him again. I see his actions as being correct & the implementation of his policies as being on target to get the ecconomy out of the ditch that the Clinton administration left behind. I hope she doesn't resume the presidency anytime soon.:cool: :D

[Merryprankster]

Christopher M--

So long as the interest on said debt does not exceed a reasonable amount, I'm with you on Keynes.