This Story is Archived
World Economy at Risk From Chaos of Bush Regime »
Posted by: Neophile 1 year, 8 months agoWhen Bush assumed the presidency in 2001, many hoped he would govern competently from the centre. More pessimistic critics consoled themselves by questioning how much harm a president could do in a few years. We now know the answer: a great deal.
Read Full Story at resourceinvestor.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 78
-
hamy
Dec. 29, 2006, 4:45 p.m.Name one fact in that article that was not true. Bush did lean on the housing market to support the economy and I think that the lackluster consumption during the holidays proved that Americans are scared of what is going to happen to their money in the next year. If our economy goes into the toilet any further, the world's economy will suffer.
-
kneechay
Dec. 30, 2006, 4:41 a.m.The record spending is in the luxury goods 'cause it's the rich who've gotten richer and can spen copious amounts of capital, while those who normally shop a Walmart can't even afford that anymore because they're poorer now.
-
-
-
Teech
Dec. 29, 2006, 7:39 p.m....bovine excrement being the chief product and export of the Bush administration....after chaos, war, bankruptcy, dishonesty and corruption.
-
ybdogsct
Dec. 30, 2006, 10:07 a.m."btw...I never trust the leftist elites from those Ivy League colleges....99 and 44/100% of the time they are way off base and do more damage to the US than good..."
Of course, you don't. If you placed your trust in facts, reason, and Ivy League-educated experts with advanced degrees, you wouldn't be a conservative. Instead, you place blind faith in Tony Snow and Fox News, which is more in line with the conservative and neoconservative M.O.
-
jordan11
Dec. 30, 2006, 11:10 a.m."I never trusted the leftist elites from those Ivy League colleges">>>
You'd have been an interesting guy to have around before the Revolution. Madison studied at the College of NJ (Now called 'Princeton') and Jefferson was highly educated. Yeah, those 'leftist 'elites' in our beginnings would have had a problem with you, I think.
-
-
Illuminate
Dec. 29, 2006, 3:55 p.m.Eat the rich. The poor are tough and stringy.
~Wisdom of the Illuminati
-
technodd
Sept. 13, 2007, 5:14 a.m.http://websearchblog.blogspot.com/
http://websearchblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/dos-g...
http://trexko.blogspot.com/2007/09/people-v-est...
http://onlinebooksreview.blogspot.com/
http://onlinebooksreview.blogspot.com/2007/09/s...
http://atrone.blogspot.com/2007/09/radio-freque...
http://grexmusic.blogspot.com/
http://grexmusic.blogspot.com/2007/09/dragonfor...
http://simplecssdesign.blogspot.com/
http://simplecssdesign.blogspot.com/2007/09/ima...
http://simplecssdesign.blogspot.com/2007/09/50-...
http://weekbyweek07.blogspot.com/
http://weekbyweek07.blogspot.com/2007/09/most-u...
-
-
Teech
Dec. 29, 2006, 7:37 p.m.We already know how much damage Dumbya did in just six years! 8 trillion national debt, the largest redistribution of wealth in world history, Iraq, total loss of national prestige abroad......and a few thousand other "Bush accomplishments that history will clarify. There's still a couple of bucks to be squeezed out of all this, and Dumbya and company will get 'em all!
-
-
superchase
Dec. 29, 2006, 11:14 p.m.OUTTA TOUCH
In the words of John Eisenhower, son of a President, this is the direction which the Republican Party of today has chosen:
http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/arts2/arts241.h
"The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation's financial structure sound."
"The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today's Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor."
-
-
kneechay
Dec. 30, 2006, 4:48 a.m.Wow! You're amazingly out of it! Do you owe your lobotomy to hypnosis and drugs, or have you just been watching FOX non-stop since the Iraq invasion? Of course the third possibilty is you're one of the people profiting from this admin. but that seems unlikey since it's such a small segment of the population that has benefitted. You must stick to Limbaugh and O'Reilly religiously right? Kudos on your thorough self-deception, what IS the matrix like anyway?
-
ETproductions
Dec. 30, 2006, 11:14 a.m.Doc, sounds like you live in a Rush inspired fantasy world where up is down and any fiction you need to justify your greed becomes verifiable truth.
Clinton Years - Big budget surpluses and decreasing debt as a percent of gross national product.
Bush Years - Skyrocketing budget deficits and the national debt on a ramp up as percent of GNP rivaled only by the Reaganomics years.
This after Bush's 2000 campaign lies about being able to give the rich his massive tax cut without squandering Clinton's budget surplus.
The few people still holding true to the New Republican Party are those driven by one of two ugly emotions, greed or cowardice. It is a distinct pleasure to debate people who pooh-pooh science, claim facts are meaningless and admit they don't trust the well educated . Please continue your posting. With every additional utterance from your mouth, more people see your true stripes.
-
Sachmo499
Dec. 30, 2006, 12:16 a.m.Much as we predicted before Bush ever became president. Monkeyboy can't run a business, what makes you think he can run a country? Example #1 - Our deficit - What happened to the surplus' were were having every year under the Dems and the balanced budget?
-
-
kctrixter
Dec. 30, 2006, 9:25 a.m.Doc.: I agree. There never was a surplus. You can't have a surplus until you have paid off all your dept, we were simply taking in slightly more then we were spending, but we were still way in the hole. What genius decided that this was just free money that should be returned to the rich I'll never know? Oh yeah maybe I do know.
-
-
mcgrievysr
Dec. 30, 2006, 5:50 a.m.DocJ----it would help if you'd "tax" your brain a bit before you respond with your normal tripe.
-
Beau7890
Dec. 30, 2006, 3:22 a.m.Uh, I don't think so, DocJ.
100 years ago there was an even greater division between rich and poor than we have now in this country, made possible by monopolies and robber barons. I'll admit, though, we've made GREAT strides over the past 20 years toward getting back to that imbalance of wealth and power you love so much.
The rise of the middle class began with anti-monopoly legislation during the 1910s, and gained momentum concurrently with FDR's social policies and further strides by the labor movement during the '30s, all of which I imagine you would like to dismantle further.
And the middle class hit its peak during the post-WWII baby boom, steadily rising through the '60s.
In fact, what you hate so much about all of those taxes is the idea that they redistribute wealth. And the redistribution of wealth was the most immediate contributor to the rise of the middle class in this country.
But thanks for playing.
-
kctrixter
Dec. 30, 2006, 10:32 a.m.We spent $406,000,000,000.00 on intrest alone in 2006, so yeah things have changed a bit in a hundred yrs. In case you are missing the point money spent on intrest is a overspending stupity tax and is the first tax we should cut. You know how to do that right, stop spending, pay off your dept, and when you get even make sure you pay pay as you go so you don't end up in the same hole again.
-
jordan11
Dec. 30, 2006, 11:33 a.m.Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.>>>>>
In comparison to what? Your analogy is specious. The world was quite poor overall, 100 years ago. So we were 'less poor' but still poor. We didn't have an infrastructure to carry cars, or move goods, or provide high quality health care, or research at a fast pace, or respond to disasters, or offer many a higher education, or communicate, or, or, or. How do you think a society pays for these things? But I will say this in your defense. The waste is astronomical, and until taxpayers stop letting government oversee itself, it will get worse.
-
Beau7890
Dec. 30, 2006, 3:24 a.m.By the way, why do I keep reporting this JLEG above as spam, but his posts are still all over the place on Netscape?
How often do they check the reports?
-
news_junky
Dec. 30, 2006, 2:17 a.m.FUZZY MATH ! Greatest answer i ever heard. what did you expect? FUZZY FUTURE, think about your kids, the first 5 years are the most important in a childs life, the very foundation, most of the kids born in the last 6 years to poor and average homes, single parents, are doomed, doomed, they are less likely to make to college and guess what? they have trillions of $$$ to pay, so mr no taxes up there can get $300.
-
lbrunnels
Dec. 30, 2006, 7:57 a.m.The two-party system works in this fashion. The Democrats take from the middle class in the name of Fairness to the Poor. The Republicans take from the poor in the name of Fairness to the Rich. They get their money and marching orders from the same people.
Right.
Left.
Right.
Left.
Right.
Left.
And the sheeple think that they can fix it by voting for one of the next wave of front men for the rich. Why? Because they are willing to bet the freedom of the rest of the people away for a chance that the next pirate will give them a piece of the booty.
Bye Bye America. Hello NWO. The New World Order could be renamed "Swimming with Crocs".
-
DavidLSchneider
Dec. 30, 2006, 8:14 a.m.The world economy is right on schedule as the powerful and rich who are behind the scenes have scripted. Old money or new they are there and pulling the strings of the puppets who are their front men.
I remember when I was living in New York City and a group of African Americans were mad at a merchant in Harlem. I think he was accused of racist business practices. They picketed and the neighbourhood stopped buying there and shut him down. What if Americans and others started being more savvy about whom they bought from when it came to personal items other than essentials? Maybe that kind of political mite would put some holes in the rich and powerful that aim to control the masses. Live on less. Think before you buy where the product is from and how it was made and refuse to put up with politicians who do not do likewise. And never put money before principals.
-
Amazing1
Dec. 30, 2006, 9:34 a.m.I agree with all your suggestions. The problem is that most Americans are too comfortable and/or lazy to change the way they live. And put principals before money? Many figure it's good for the fat cats, it's good for me.
Still, I agree with the idea. Raise chickens, sell eggs, grow vegetables and live simply. I try never to buy anything not made in the USA. Nearly impossible.
-
-
mr-thoughtful
Dec. 30, 2006, 8:49 a.m.DocJ--I see the theme in your writing. You think taxes are bad. I suppose you think public goods and services would magically appear without them. Or, that the private sector would furnish everything we need, regardless of its cost or the ability of the beneficiaries to pay.
Wrong. We have among the very lowest tax rates in the developed world. We also have, consequently, one of the lowest average standards of living, one of the lowest education levels, and a healthcare system that does not include 50 million Americans.
Good government can be efficient too--unless it is staffed with political flunkies. The social security system is much more efficiently administered than mutual funds. The Veterans Administration is now the top rated healthcare system in the country, based on costs, consumer satisfaction and medical outcomes.
If you're going to complain about taxes, complain about Bush's tax cuts--the economy's 'growth' has never replaced the funds lost to taxes.
-
ETproductions
Dec. 31, 2006, 12:36 a.m.The Bush administration came into power on the coattails of the New Republican mantra, all government is bad. They have done a wonderful job of demonstrating that their premise can be true.
I look around the world, and even back into our own past, and see that government can do good. it can solve problems that the tragedy of the commons cannot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common
-
-
mr-thoughtful
Dec. 30, 2006, 8:52 a.m.DocJ--I just read your presentation of 'history' 100 years ago. You truly know nothing. Stick to whatever is your forte, and it is not history or economics.
-
simonsez
Dec. 30, 2006, 10:34 a.m.thoughtful ... I bet you pay no federal taxes or ever owned a company.
-
rrrtx
Dec. 30, 2006, 1:30 p.m.The size and expense of government exploded after the New Deal. DocJ is absolutely correct to say that the level of taxation and regulation is much higher now. It's vastly higher than it was before we went down the statist path in the 30's.
And BTW those countries with higher taxes also have very low growth rates and extremely high unemployment. Those tax rates have a price.
"one of the lowest average standards of living"
Complete fantasy. Not only do we have per capita wealth that is among the highest in the world we also have lower real estate costs, lower energy prices, and extremely high quality health care. And although our public education system isn't great our university system is the envy of the world.
Why do you think we are attracting all those highly educated professionals from other countries?
-
ETproductions
Dec. 31, 2006, 12:55 a.m.So DocJ, your point would be we should eliminate all those taxes (everything except import duties) and then the US would be much more prosperous? Our $9 trillion dollar debt could jump up by nearly 2.5 trillion dollars a year.
Like I say, the Rocket fuel of the New Right is a three-part mix. Greed, fear and hate. The remarkable thing is it burns just as well regardless of the proportions used. This is the discovery that made Karl Rove the wizard of politics in 2000. With computer databases, it is possible to track just who is greedy, who is a coward and who wants to stamp out this that or the other group.
No one component will get the rocket off the ground by itself. And there are just a handful of far-righters who are driven by all three. But set up a system where you can tap into the worst in all people, and that rocket will fly.
Decent Americans have been so distracted they have let this go on too far. They are waking up. 2006 was the first sign of that. I look for more.
-
-
dtress1d
Dec. 30, 2006, 9:42 a.m.Sorry that this story is just that a "story" since it is not true!
Gee, the stock market, not just in the USA, but around the world is at all time high!
The only world problem in the medias support of the Int'l Terrorism!
If the media did its job & 24x7 the Major Muslim clerics statements that Terrorism is murder & against the Koran and Int'l Terrorism is NOT a holy war and not a direct ticket to the good place; most of the current terrorists would stop & few would join.
So I believe the media is responsible for most of the death & destruction around the world done by Int'l Terrorism & should be forced to pay the price ($ & jail time) for their support (aide) to the Int'l Terrorism!
What do you think?
-
Newenglander
Dec. 30, 2006, 10:59 a.m.I think you should only watch Fox News. They'll tell you what you want to hear so you don't have to see whats really going on. Either that or close all the media outlets except Fox and we can all become as ignorant as you. Docj would approve as well I'm sure.
-
ETproductions
Dec. 31, 2006, 12:57 a.m."So I believe the media is responsible for most of the death & destruction around the world done by Int'l Terrorism & should be forced to pay the price ($ & jail time) for their support (aide) to the Int'l Terrorism!"
Humm. Big business is out to destroy big business. Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
-
-
saneman
Dec. 30, 2006, 11:16 a.m.We need to try harder to strengthen the value of the dollar; otherwise, it will cost me more to get my products manufactured in China.
-
hamy
Dec. 30, 2006, 11:38 a.m.I can't find any of this funny anymore. It's not funny that every man woman and child in this country owes over $130,000 towards the national debt. I don't think it's funny that people have been devalued so much that a barrel of oil that costs $60 is more precious. A drug company's profits are more important than the lives of millions who will take that drug, because the companies are allowed to market the drug directly to people even before it is approved as safe. I wish I could sleep for the next two years and wake up when it's over.
-
rrrtx
Dec. 30, 2006, 4:03 p.m.What do you believe is causing the dollar to drop?
Are there any positive benefits from a falling dollar?
-
-
questionseverything
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:04 p.m.i'll admit i was one of those peops that thought...well how much harm can he do?
the govt has been chipping away at the constituion for yrs
{gun control,mj laws,seat belts and with seat belts illegal saftey checks} but i nevr dreamed an American could go so far as this admin has
Americans r hurting so now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone but the top 1 percent...
my fav time to tax peops would be when they die, because they wont care..lol..
The first 65 comments are shown. Show all 78 comments »
Submitted By:
Neophile
I'm a Propeller Scout so if you have any questions or concerns, send me a message and I'll be happy to help.
Also submitted:
