Jump to content

At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody is a Critic....


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Washington Post

quote:

By Dana Milbank

Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A02

If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.

"We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come," explained David Boaz, the think tank's executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. "We didn't get that."

Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation?

Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."

Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ."

True, the small-government libertarians represented by Cato have always been the odd men out of the Bush coalition. But the standing-room-only forum yesterday, where just a single questioner offered even a tepid defense of the president, underscored some deep disillusionment among conservatives over Bush's big-spending answer to Medicare and Hurricane Katrina, his vast claims of executive power, and his handling of postwar Iraq.

Bartlett, who lost his job at the free-market National Center for Policy Analysis because of his book, said that if conservatives were honest, more would join his complaint. "They're reticent to address the issues that I've raised for fear that they might have to agree with them," he told the group. "And a lot of Washington think tanks and groups of that sort, they know that this White House is very vindictive."

Waiting for the talk to start, some in the audience expressed their ambivalence.

"It's gonna hit the [bestseller] lists, I'm sure," said Cato's legal expert, Roger Pilon.

"Typical Bruce," replied John Taylor of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.

Admitted Pilon: "He's got a lot of material to work with."

Bartlett certainly thought so. He began by predicting a big tax increase "to finance the inevitable growth of government that is in the pipeline that President Bush is largely responsible for." He also said many fellow conservatives don't know about the "quite dreadful" traits of the administration, such as the absence of "anybody who does any serious analysis" on policy issues.

Boaz assured the audience that he told the White House that "if there's a rebuttal to what Bruce has said, please come and provide it."

Instead, Sullivan was on hand to second the critique. "This is a big-government agenda," he said. "It is fueled by a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism." The bearded pundit offered his own indictment of Bush: "complete contempt" for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government." The notion, he said, that the "Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy."

The question period gave the two a chance to come up with new insults.

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served.

"You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles," Sullivan volleyed. "Any principles that get in the way of the electoral map have to be dispensed with."

Boaz renewed his plea. "Any Bush economists hiding in the audience?"

There was, in fact, one Bush Treasury official on the attendance roster, but he did not surface. The only man who came close to defending Bush, environmental conservative Fred Singer, said he was "willing to overlook" the faults because of the president's Supreme Court nominations. Even Richard Walker, representing the think tank that fired Bartlett, declined to argue. "I agree with most of it," he said later.

Unchallenged, the Bartlett-Sullivan tag team continued. "The entire intellectual game has been given away by the Republican president," said Sullivan. "He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist."

Bartlett argued that Richard Nixon "is the model for everything Bush is doing."

Sullivan said Karl Rove's political strategy is "pathetic."

Bartlett said that "the administration lies about budget numbers."

"He is not a responsible human being; he is a phenomenally reckless human being," Sullivan proclaimed. "There is a level of recklessness involved that is beyond any ideology."

"Gosh," Boaz interjected. "I wish we had a senior White House aide up here."

I wonder what is influencing Bush's decisions?

bushdollar9sy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err, what's with the calling Bush a socialist? I'm unaware of any government projects that could be considered that (except, perhaps the "No Child Left Behind" thingy). So if you could tell what they are that'd be nice.

Or in the U.S., is that anything that comes within a billion kilometres of socialism get you called a socialist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll refer you to the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. Find the ones that aren't being practiced in the United States in one form or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is someone's observation:

quote:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned" This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

The 10 planks were produced by Karl Marx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush slid down REALLY low in my opinion. He IS a socialist, Katrina proved it big time. He literally pissed away our money down the drain on that one, and NOBODY was held responsible, 60% of this government, and I don't just mean the Bush administration, I mean the whole government, should be in prison labor camps, the other 20% should be executed for gross incompetence, treason, violating the Constitution they swore to uphold, and crimes commited against the citizens of this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah lets go ahead and do that Hitler. And meanwhile we just sink lower and lower until America is at the bottom of the heap and grumbling for money. Then you will undoubtably be the first to complain.

Once again, I think you overstep simple logic with poor reasoning. Our country may be in an economic rout but it wasnt Bush's fault- even though you are so quick to blame him. And it isnt all as bad as it seems. You once again seem to point to Katrina and say "Look, all our money put into helping a bunch of people I dont even know. OMG." Thats the attitude you seem to be displaying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I'll refer you to the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. Find the ones that aren't being practiced in the United States in one form or another.

Actually I was wondering what Bush was doing in particular that was socialist.

(Granted I don't know a whole lot about the American governing system so I'm not completely sure how much power the President has besides the veto.)

Soback: What about the other, other 20%, or did they cross the border the moment people started executing and forcing them into prison camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about helping the people I don't know. It's about re-distribution of wealth (they paid out $200,000 per family, for their homes, while their homes were worth LESS than $100,000, HOWEVER, why should the government be spending my taxes, buying other peoples homes, period), it's about social programs (those "refugees" were fed, clothed and taken care of for 7 months, a lot of them are STILL being clothed, fed, and taken care of, while forcing ME to pay for them) Don't give me the "they are disprivelleged" BS. Me and my mom moved here from another country with LESS than $1,000 dollars, fast forward, and 13 years later I have an education that I have paid for with loans, refusing all government grants, and we have a house. What have those "refugees" done? They were born in US, and 7 months, billions of dollars later they are STILL in the gutters, leeching off of working people like me.

Who enables them with their rights, taking the money that is earned by the working people and gives it to them. The government. Who is at the top of the government right now. Bush. Is he using my tax money to secure the borders against illegal immigration? No. Is he using the power granted to him by the Constitution to strenghten US, politically and economically. No. Is he doing anything to make US self reliant. No. Is he doing anything to protect my Constitutional rights? No. He is gutting US of jobs by pandering to the socialist China. He is bleeding US of wealth by squandering it on social programs. He is not doing anything to protect this country borders. He is not doing anything to protect my CONSTITUTIONAL rights. He is not impeaching/prosecuting people in this government that are blatantly passing laws that violate my Constitutional rights, nor is he doing anything about those that fail to uphold the Law of the Land, aka the Constitution. He is as much a criminal as they are.

That's what it's all about. And that's why roughly 60% of this government is corrupt and should be gotten rid off. While 20% being so corrupt that letting them rot in jail is a liability. Russia let Lenin sit in jail, and look what happened. If he was shot, Russia would've never contracted the cancer that is socialism, the socialism that first bled her dry and then rotted her away. If not for socialism, a capitalistic Russia would have been one of the worlds super powers today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I guess.

One very minor point: How the heck can you blame the exporting of jobs to developing countries on the government? For the vast majority of cases that's a businesses decision. The currently obvious exception would be the ports, but in general thatÔÇÖs a management thing and so is very few jobs being "lost" to foreign countries. Plus, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe economics are a zero-sum game.

The only why the government would be able to stop exporting of jobs to foreign countries is by imposes rather stringent regulations on said companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush isn't a Socialist - he's just not very fiscally responsible. Well, I think so, anyway.

Personally, I worry far more about foreign enemies than I do about the economy these days. Aside from some major domestic security gaffs, I'd say he's doing a decent job. Still, I certainly hope a conservative gets elected to the next administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have a strong defense without a strong economy backing it up.

Defending the country takes military, intelligence, people, equipment, ect.... that in turn takes money. Military doesn't produce money, it consumes it. The better defended a country is, the more it costs to operate that said defense, THUS the stronger economically the country needs to be to maintain that defense. In Russia, once socialism completly ate away at countrys wealth, airforce pilots were flying their Migs to middle east, and sell them. When they returned, there were absolutly no reprecussions. Why? Because the pilots, just like other highly trained military personel, weren't being paid. So they were selling off the equipment they were given to operate so that they had money, to provide for their families. That's what happens when the economy of the country is weak.

Free trade? Do you know how the economy works? Free trade is nothing but a bunch of bull. Those Chinese factories overseas don't have stringent regulations, and Chinese economy dictates that those factory workers get paid ten times less than a US factory worker. It's NOT low pay, it's just that's what the costs of living in China is. You can rent a place to live, buy food and other expenses on that "low, by US standards" pay. Same goes for customer support being exported to India. How do you secure your internal economy, and make the country less dependent on other countrys economies. By making sure your country can provide the services, manufacturing, and other jobs INTERNALLY. So, what you do is regulate it with TARIFS. You make the car imported from Japan or Europe cost the same as the comparable car made in US. Don't you understand that once lets say, a steel industry is gone in US because it's cheaper to import said steel from China, because of difference in labor costs. You are in DEEP do do if China decides to drastically raise their rates, or with holds shipments of steel, or a disaster strikes and no more trade with.... in this case China. It will take years, if not a decade to re-establish your footing and re-build, internally, the industry that has been lost.

I will agree with you that internall trade should be completly de-regulated, as that leads to healthy competition, increased job security, increased standard of living, AND prevents the states from tightening their grip on the citizens freedoms and bussinesses. As both groups will move to the state that doesn't violate their rights. HOWEVER, international trade is a whole different issue. Unregulated, it destroys your home economy, lowers your standard of living (if you are trading with the country that has lower standars of living, it will raise it if you are trading with the country that has higher standards of living, since US is right there on the top, it lowers the standards of living in US while raising in whoever we are trading with), destroys your home industry (be it product or service based), ect...It becomes global economy, which means ONE WORLD economy. What that means to YOU, is, if your standard of living is good, then it will drive it down, if you live in a country where it's low, it will drive it up. It's just like socialism, YOU end up paying the costs for third world countries, by buying cheaper products now, destroying your home industries, and when your trading partners standard of living increases, so do their costs, and so do the costs of products they sell to you. However, your home industry has already been gutted, and you will pay the costs later. So the results of that take decades to manifest.

See the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Bush isn't a Socialist - he's just not very fiscally responsible. Well, I think so, anyway.

Personally, I worry far more about foreign enemies than I do about the economy these days. Aside from some major domestic security gaffs, I'd say he's doing a decent job. Still, I certainly hope a conservative gets elected to the next administration.

Don't worry, we aren't getting stuck with the bill, our grandchildren are. And screw them - they will think we smell funny anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soback: I can see how worldwide trade can harm internal economic security. But I can't see how it will negatively affect the quality of life for countries that already have a high quality of life. In fact, I am aware of a particular theory that states the opposite. Admittedly my knowledge of economics is rather limited so, meh.

(Also I would disagree that the U.S.' quality of living is the highest, but that's quite subjective so its an impossible argument.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say you are a feudal lord. Your lands have grain fields, coal mining, steel plants. You have a stable internal economy, everything is groovy.

Now, your neighboring lord has lands, but they are all in dissaray. His people live poorly, barely scraping by. So one day he decides that he will gather up some of his people, and pay them a little bit (which they will be happy to get, because they are barely scraping by as it is) to go mine coal. Then, he figures he can sell that coal to you at a huge profit, because your coal miners get paid much more. They get paid more because everything else in your lands costs more, since you have a stable economy, and the coal miners will obviously will not work for less than what is required to provide for their living.

So. When he starts selling coal to you. What does it do? Well, on one hand it's great. The prices of coal in your country go down, since the shop owners are buying it at a lower price from your neighbor rather then from your own miners at a higher price. What happens to your miners? Well, now they are out of work. So their quality of living just droped, which is a decrease in overall quality of living, but others quality of living has increased because now since they pay less for coal, they have more money to spend on other things.

What happens in your neighbors lands however? Well, now he is starting to build some functionality into his economy. He has a mining industry. Those miners are making money, and have money to spend on other things. So their standard of living is increasing. Which creates other jobs, because his miners have disposable income. Now, remember how everything was cheap in his country? Not anymore, now things are starting to cost more, as the economy starts growing, other jobs come into the picture, and they start having enough money to start importing, lets say, the steel from YOUR steel mills.

Now, it's good right? Or so it seems. Even though your mining industry is gone, now you have more business selling steel to your neighbor, so those miners went into the steel industry.

However, now since your neighbor is importing steel, the quality of life for his people keeps on increasing, now he can't keep those miners for the low wages that he was paying them, and now he can't sell the coal to you for cheap. What does that mean for your economy? Well, now you don't have a coal mining business, so you have no choice but to buy the coal from him. BUT since it costs more, your own people now pay the prices that are either the same that your own miners used to charge, or pretty close to them. So, their quality of life starts going down, less disposable income, because now they spend more for coal again.

So, we fast forward. Lets say your neighbor build his own steel mills. Not only that, but now he can't sell you the coal anymore, his own population has grown and he needs it for them. What does it mean for you? Well, you are in do do. Your peoples quality of life plumets, they have to re-build their mining industry, and there will be a period while the coal is either un-available, or the price is through the roof.

You see how for a couple of decades of lower coal prices you have traded away your future security. And for a period of a little higher standard of living (on top of the good standard of living you already had) you have increased your neighbors quality of life, while later on destroyed the quality of life for your own people.

This is a very limited, mini economy scenario.

But, you can paralel it to how poor the quality of life was in China, Mexico, middle east was in the 60's and how much better it is today. Now, compared to US, they are still of course, pretty bad. BUT, they have raised their standards of living at the cost of OUR businesses. They enjoy cars, freeways, internet, computers, ect... today because WE (our government) have allowed them to sell their products here, at MUCH lower prices. Now, it increases our standard of living temporarily (as you can see from that example), BUT have destroyed our home industry and service jobs/businesses, and when those third world countries standard of living rises, and the prices of their exports go up accordingly, because our own industries have been gutted by them and we have no choice but to depend on imports, OUR standards of living goes down because now we are importing the things we COULD have been making ourselfs at ever increasing prices, till such a time comes that it will be cost effective to produce such products again, at home. However, during the transitionary period we will have to pay, and pay dearly. So we are literally selling away our future, or buying todays comfort on credit. However you want to put it.

The only way to prevent that. Is having taffirs. That when a third world country wants to sell it's stuff here, the price difference is imposed in taxes on THEM. Which means our own internal economy will be self sufficient, AND on top of it we can absorb consumer demand spikes by increasing or decreasing tarifs on imports. That's if you want your country to be a complete true stronghold.

Now, if you are for one world, government, nation, country, whatever. Then you can create a one world economy. Eventually everything will balance out. But there will be some tough times that are self imposed and are un-necessary, as you will be paying with your quality of life and your childrens quality of life, plunging your country into dissaray, all for "helping" increase the quality of life for your neighbors.

At least in China's case, you can really see them making big strides. Hell, they were just farming communities in the early 1900's, now it's really coming up. In Mexico's case, they would rather migrate here and send the money back, and keep their economy in shambles so that the money they send back is worth 10 times as much. Which is what a lot of them do, work in US for 10 or 15 years, then go back, buy a house and retire with the money they saved up, while putting a US citizen out of work and on wellfare.

Also, you should probably know this, every US dollar that leaves US borders increases inflation here in the US. As now we will have two dollars. One that the we will print again to replace the one that left our borders (remember, the Gold Standard was abolished, and now we are not restricted to printing only so much money as can be backed up by gold, we can print gazillions and not back it up by anything but the words "Legal tender" which means when the time comes to collect on loans, puff it all crumbles to dust as there's no wealth to secure the loans taken out or give", and then another one that will find it's way here back from Mexico. The value of dollar didn't increase, but when all of a sudden there's two where there should've been only one, the true value for each one is only 50cents. Now, since you can't call 1 dollar 50 cents, you have to raise the price of goods from 0.99 to 1.99 to compensate. So that the true value of someones time spent working to earn that dollar stays the same. Thus inflation. Another way your standard of living is decreased, this time by illegal immigration.

[ 03-09-2006, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is Bush a socialist?

Because he does NOTHING to improve our situation. He continues selling out US citizens, he continues letting illegals into this country. He is selling out our future for peanuts, or rather for improving the quality of life for others, the others in other countries and the others at home (Katrina, wellfare, social security, medicare, ect...social programs) he is forcing us pay for all that.

When my work will benefit only me. When my taxes are spend with primary benefit going to the taxpayer. And when the decision of my money (labor) going to help the less fortunate (or not), and how much, is left up to me. Then I will support a person that is responsible for that. And I can say that he believes in and respects the Constitution of the United States of America.

Bush is nothing but another socialist, wiping his dirty hands on the US Constitution while smirking at us on national tv when he says "People and fish can co-exist" "..to put food on your family.."

Don't know what goes on through his head, or where it's burried. But whether or not people and fish can co-exist, or the sick thought of putting food on my family, are farthest from my mind. He is obviously not thinking about borders, economy, or protecting our Constitutional rights. Last time I checked, he was thinking about selling the rights to manage a couple OUR marine terminals(yes, the US citizens are the OWNERS of those terminals, as our taxes paid for them) to a foreign power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example that better reflects the current world situation would be if Mr. Feudal lord with the high standard of living had a good lumber and furniture building industry. However, it costs lots of money to make furniture as its quite time-consumming (not mass-produced easily in this case).

However Mr. Other Feudal lord with the lower standard of living has very cheap labour costs.

So Mr. Feudal decides that it would be better to buy the furniture from Mr. Other. This will cause two problems: All the people who made furniture for Mr. Feudal are now out of a job and Mr. Other is now in dire need of raw materials. The second is easy to solve, just sell the lumber to Mr. Other. The first problem requires a bit more thinking. First, there is now more demand for lumber production because of all the lumber Mr. Other now needs. Secondly the now-jobless serfs of Mr. Feudal can start selling the Furniture to the lumber producers and each other.

Now, this will increase Mr. OtherÔÇÖs quality of living: they have more demand for their jobs. Also this will increase Mr. FeudalÔÇÖs quality of living as his serfs now have more furniture at lower costs plus have an increase in jobs available.

How is this more valid? It includes all three types of industries from resource collection to production to services.

Granted this is more applicable to Canada since there are tonnes of natural resources here. And yes, if the person stops importing/exporting you have a problem but then again, Canada went through this somewhat.

Anyhow, yes many developing countries quality of life increased in the passed couple decades: but so did the developed countries.

On Bush: Err, just because someone disregards the Constitution, lets illegals into the country etc. doesnÔÇÖt make him a socialist: That just means his dishonest, self-interested and basically most of the traits that politicians are stereotyped with. The certain social projects work, the rest doesnÔÇÖt (basically socialist != someone who disregards the constitution).

quote:

Last time I checked, he was thinking about selling the rights to manage a couple OUR marine terminals(yes, the US citizens are the OWNERS of those terminals, as our taxes paid for them) to a foreign power.


You do realise that the businesses that manage the ports have to pay money to cover the costs of the marine terminals. Heck, they might be charged more so that they don't have to tax their populace less (or make the taxes go further). Furthermore the only loss of jobs are due to upper management and that's only if it causes an American shipping compnay to go out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I share SilK's and Soback's disgust at our fiscal situation in this country, I don't lay it at Bush's feet so much as Washington's overall. It has been standard operating procedure for so long now to operate the U.S. like a fiscally-defunct household headed for bankruptcy, there is nothing one man can do to make a huge enough impact to turn things around.

Bush has tried to do some things - his tax cuts, his social security reform, his vouchers for families, but all of these have died a slow political crib death.

I can hardly blame Bush that in 10 years, the ratio of working people to retired people will have dropped from 40 to 1 in 1970 to 3 to 1. A reasonably intelligent person can see that this system is destined to implode under its own weight, but no one has done anything about the broken social security system for decades. How do you fix these things when they are broken beyond repair?

Me, I have learned to stop worrying about it, invest in gold, have as large a savings as I can, and prepare for the seemingly inevitable collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Aperson. Here's the thing. Name at least one big league American port managing company. THER'S NONE. NOT ONE. Why? Because just like in my first exampley, they have been put out of business once we started letting non US based companies bid on port managing contracts. Whith lower labor (managment) costs overseas, the non US companies have won the bids, and ultimatly put big US port managing companies OUT OF BUSINESS. And now, we are stuck. We either pay more (it takes time to grow a good, reliable company, thus the start up costs are ALWAYS higher, till the company gains experience and operational costs drop) and have a small US company manage the ports and grow with it, or outsource it. The politicians have literally screwed the citizens, and not a single one of them is held liable. If I, a simple guy, with a simple education can understand this, are you going to tell me (like those fricking politicians do) that they didn't know what they were doing? Of course they did, they were lining their pockets and the pockets of their friends with this deals. They were also getting re-elected because the US citizen was enjoying lower costs on credit, because of those deals. It was the politicians RESPONSIBILITY to explain it to the citizens in a rational matter, NOT give them candy for a decade while screwing them in a lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Me, I have learned to stop worrying about it, invest in gold, have as large a savings as I can, and prepare for the seemingly inevitable collapse.

You realize that Gold's value has been tracked as far back as Napolean and has a really crappy long-term investment rate over any ten year period of that history?

The only reason it's going up at all now is because the talk radio hosts and newsmax are pushing it to increase their own stock so they can sell it.

You'd get a higher return from a mutual fund.

Also - if the economy collapses gold will be worthless. We go to a barter system if the economy collapses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps 'collapse' isn't the correct word. In economies, the term 'correction' is more appropriate. To whit, the Great Depression is considered by many economists to have been an economic correction, albeit a fairly severe one.

Sure, if our very system were to crumble in an unprecedented economic disaster, gold would be as useful as cray paper. But more realistically, we are looking at, if anything, what would amount to a severe economic downturn; or a 'correction', in which gold will largely retain its value on the world market while the majority of medium and high risk stocks that comprise our mutual funds will dry up to penny stocks.

I have mutual funds; I just don't rely on them exclusively. From everything I have read, gold IS a wise investment; it just shouldn't be all that your portfolio is comprised of.

Back to the topic at hand, did you have any response to my previous point about Bush and the economy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If economy collapses, gold will still retain it's value as a trading medium. So will silver.

Precious metals are universally accepted. They don't spoil, and it's something that everyone can recognize (thus universally accepted).

So, having gold/silver is beneficial if things were to go bad. Especially buying those metals a little over time, as it's cost prohibitive to buy them in bulk, it is also a somewhat questionable investment for growth, BUT it is a good security investment as it will rarely drop in value, at the minimum you will get back the original value out of them (adjusted for the economy at the moment of sale, meaning if you have enough gold to buy a car today, 20 years from now that same ammount of gold will at least be able to buy you a comparable mode of transportation) Precious metals follow the inflation/deflation trends and their growth or lack of is linked to the health of the economy. Thus if you see their prices spike, expect inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the United States one day had all its gold stolen or lost, nothing would change unless it was needed as trade between the US and foreign nations. Nobody would know their money was worthless and as long as it stayed that way our society could hypothetically survive off nonexistant wealth and no one would know...

...That was a random statement I just thought the idea was intruiging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by The Black Ghost:

If the United States one day had all its gold stolen or lost, nothing would change unless it was needed as trade between the US and foreign nations. Nobody would know their money was worthless and as long as it stayed that way our society could hypothetically survive off nonexistant wealth and no one would know...

...That was a random statement I just thought the idea was intruiging.

Our dollars are paper, they are worth nothing, the only thing they are worth is the governments word that they are worth something.

It is nonexistent wealth, just don't let them know that you know that.

That very intriguing statement is about as close to the truth as you can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Back to the topic at hand, did you have any response to my previous point about Bush and the economy?

I'm not sure exactly how much can be laid on his feet there, but there is a list of questions to be asked that Neal Boortz compiled this morning:

* Why did he sign the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act? He clearly stated that he thought the law was unconstitutional, but he signed it anyway. Now our right to political free speech is clearly under assault.

* Why has non-defense related government spending risen so fast during his Administration? Why did he set all-time records for government spending increases during the first three years of his presidency?

* Why has he been silent on the issue of school choice?

* Why did he team up with Ted Kennedy to double spending on the Department of Education, a Department Republicans had pledged to eliminate six years before he was elected. The spending hasn't helped. The quality of education has steadily decreased during the past six years.

* Forget the Arab aspects of the port deal, why would George Bush support turning over essential operations of six American ports to any foreign government, let alone an Arab one?

* Why hasn't he spoken out forcefully against the Kelo v. New London decision from the Supreme Court and the wholesale assault on the concept of private property rights that is ongoing in this country today?

* How could it possibly be that he hasn't found one single bill worthy of a presidential veto during the past five years? Is this an indication that over the past five years the Congress of the United States hasn't passed one single solitary piece of legislation that George Bush considered to be contrary to the principles of our Constitution, or excessive in any way?

* How in the wide, wide world of sports did he get talked into this obscene prescription drug program for wizened citizens? Didn't he realize that the average senior citizen spends about $600 a year on prescription drugs? That amounts to $1.64 a day. Every major pharmaceutical company out there has "lifeline" programs that insure that no American would go without a needed prescription drug. Yet he creates one of the biggest spending programs in our history; one that is destined to exceed all cost estimates. Why?

* What's the deal with tax reform? The president appoints a fancy panel to study our tax system, proposals for reform, and come up with a plan for a complete overhaul. What does the panel come up with? A virtual repeat of the 1986 tax reform act. Eliminate deductions and establish a few flat rates. The 1986 law has been amended over 9000 times since 1986. Now that's reform. The American people want some real reform. Where is the president?

* Why hasn't he spoken out more forcefully for real reform in medical care? Why hasn't he spoken out for more competition? How about a demand that congress give every private individual in this country the same tax breaks that businesses get when they buy health insurance policies?

* Why has he absolutely failed to do anything at all about the invasion of illegal immigrants flooding into our country across our border with Mexico? Why hasn't he called for a full federal investigation of charges that armed and uniformed Mexicans are firing on Border Patrol agents? Why hasn't he called for stricter penalties against employers who enable this flood of illegal immigration?

* Why hasn't he told FEMA to set aside their asinine regulations and get every vehicle with a trailer hitch in Arkansas to hook up to one of those trailers and yank the damned things down to New Orleans to provide housing for police, firefighters and any American citizen who wants to work to rebuild that city?

* After the Cheney hunting incident, why didn't he go to the White House press room and say "OK, so you didn't get the story first. So it was broken by a small newspaper in Corpus Christi. You got scooped. Deal with it. Suck it up. You aren't the only studs with press cards. The American people are rather enjoying seeing you so put out over this. Why don't you run over to Capitol Hill and ask Ted Kennedy why he went to sleep while Mary Jo's body was still in the back seat of his car? Henry Whittington is alive. Mary Jo is still dead." Couldn't you just see his approval ratings soar after a presidential slap-down like that?

* Why hasn't he spoken out against the leftist inspired war against the individual? Ted Kennedy (there's that name again) spoke in favor of it? Who is championing for the individual out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm... I answer "I don't know" to all of the above.

Seriously, it would be easy to compile a list of what he, or any president for that matter, hasn't done - a president is just one man, with finite resources and time.

As far as the spending questions, I share your angst, believe me. He has proven himself to be quite the fiscal liberal. At least a tax-and-spend liberal understands that he/she has to raise taxes to cover the increased costs he inflicts on the sheeple. 'W' somehow thinks he can RAISE spending while LOWERING revenue. I'm all about tax cuts, but there has to be some belt tightening done, and there hasn't been. Just the opposite, in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...