Seriously giddyup I'm trying not to get very sarcastic and harsh in my response but you really need to study US history. First off one NYC was hit badly but no where near devestated. I was there on 9/30/2001 and the city was still bustling. In the war of 1812 Washington DC was occupied and burned, NYC was occupied and our ports blockaded. While we were far better off than in the Revolutionary war 1812 was a conflict that could've ended up in us not existing as an independent country anymore. Only outside of wild paranoid ravings would anyone consider Al Qaeda having that capability. During the Civil War several major US cities were destroyed, albeit by another part of the US, NYC was wracked by severe riots that might've killed thousands and its not like the US economy was humming along as the industrial north's resources were tied up in war and the agricultural resources of the mostly agricultural South were blockaded by the North. In both North and South mandated rationing and scarcity were the norm. Under FDR not only was there one of the worst depressions in US history, there actually was one in the late 19th C. that was about as bad but not as long, the US faced a situation of near complete collapse of our economy, there were riots and tensions in much of the country, breakdowns in law and order and vast displacements of the population. There were legitimate fears that the US would either become a fascist dictatorship or else there would be a communist revolution. On top of that the 1930's were hit by a major environmental catastrophe, ever heard of the Dust Bowl and wonder why Oklahoma is so brown, that wiped out vast sectors of our most fertile farmland. All of this before WWII. 9/11 was bad and is a truly historical tragedy but that was 20 hijackers taking advantage of the weakness of our security. It wasn't an enemy that was one of the most advanced and industrialized countries of the time launching an air armada of thousands of fighter planes. Further Al Qaeda doesn't have one of the strongest navies in the world that could actually land an invasion force. At the time of Pearl Harbor Imperial Japan did and if you to visit Golden Gate National Park you will get a sense of how much of a threat Japan was when you see all of the concrete pillboxes doting the cliffs pointing out at the Pacific. On the European side Al Qaeda hasn't defeated and occupied some of our closest allies or boxed in England or devestated all of Europe or much of Asia. 9/11 will leave a lasting legacy but its nothing compared to what WWII did. Finally since you've brought this up a few times the economic boom brought on by WWII is essentially an artificial boom not created by the market but driven by a massive influx of government spending. Trade was only one way interms of the US sending war material to other countries. At home it wasn't like people were buying cadillacs and luxury homes since rationing and scarcity was the order of the day. Uh you ever go to the beach at GALVESTON? You ever wonder why you see first floor windows half in the ground on some of those old houses? In case you forgot your Texas history there was this little storm that flooded the whole city and killed more than 6,000 people. At the time Galveston was one of the major cities of the US and rivaled NO as the preeminent city on the Gulf Coast. If not for that hurricane Houston would probably be a burb of Galveston now. In 1878 an outbreak of yellow fever killed 5,000 in Memphis and infected 80% of the population that didn't flee. The city was so depopulated that the State of TN at the time revoked its charter as an independent government. It was flooded but amount of people killed put it close to the worst natural disaster in US history, which looks like it will keep its title since the number of deaths in NO isn't as bad as thought, the Galveston hurricane. And yes it repopulated now but at the time this was as bad if not worse than what's happening to NO now. Once again you need to seriously study US history. In 1906 almost all of SF was levelled by an earthquake and possibly up to 3,000 people died in the earthquake and fire that followed. This is still officially considered the second worst natural disaster in US history. Things might seem bad now but not compared to the challenges facing previous generations. If you want a sense of how things compare with now just ask anyone who went through the great depression and WWII and see how it compares with what we're going through now.
I said nothing about the deficit. You did. All I said was that there had been tough economic issues to deal with which he had nothing to do with creating.
GWB in 2001 in first days in office declare that the econonmy was in the toilet and his tax cuts would save the day. 6 weeks later GWB's prophecy was fulfilled and a recession started. Was his trashing of the economy from the bully pulpit the cause of the recession (effect)? The tech bubble burst in the spring of 2000. One might expect the economy to tank at that time but it did not. One would be hard pressed to find the then-current president (what was his name?) trash talking the economy for his own political gain. I will leave the trickle down tax cuts (giving people who have more money than they can spend more money and then expected them to spend it) for another discussion.
Umm I dont know, maybe that he can: A. Keep his promise of actually going after the person responsible for the deaths. B. Put the worlds biggest terrorist (you know he uses that word alot) away for good since he loves finding and destroying Turrorists. C. Actually make America safer by tearing up Al Queda. Not going after someone who could never of harmed us. But mostly Id like to see option A, and his promise to those who suffered on 9-11 actually pay off. Well at very least it would of been in the hands of someone who: Didnt run from his obligation, and has more experience in war and the affects of war, then sending people to die for a lie. Even better, at least our ARMY wouldnt be in the hands of a deserter. Right, something that Bush, Rove, Cheney all hid from when it was their time to show their patriotism. Something that Bush seems all to ok with. Our men dying for his lies. For being so close, he sure did allow it to go unattended for so long. I mean the man is taking the blame now for it. Well in real world applications, if one of my employee's fook up big time, I dont call a meeting of our entire company to pat him on the back. I dunno, call me an heretic. Im glad you think this way. Instead, we have lies about a war. Thousands of our sons and daughters dead, pushed into war when the three main chickenhawk cowards couldnt do it themselves much less allow some of their own loved ones to "fight the good cause". We are an isolationist country know with a "fook you" attitude towards everyone else, which is why our coalition of the strong looks more like a gaggle of leeches. We have a vice president who is mesmerizing us with his role in the Haliburton hand outs, Rove and his Leaking of CIA agents, gas prices skyrocketing, Health care costs out of control (hell I get to tell my employees of the impending third straight year of 30+ percent increases in premiums) and a deficit thats just unbeliveable. Not to mention all the back scratching of big oil and putting his buddies in key positions. But hey, at least we a president who went after the purportrators of 9-11...eeeeerrrrr oh wait, hes busy wagging the dog in Iraq. Hes gone after gay marriage, and oh yeah, fook those Stem cell researchers. Maybe he might get abortion overturned too. an A+ for sure.
<B>Sishir Chang First off one NYC was hit badly but no where near devestated. I was there on 9/30/2001 and the city was still bustling.</b> Well of course the entire city was not leveled, but we all saw the faces of New Yorkers and our whole nation was riveted on what happend on 9/11-- in NY in particular. We obsessed over it for about two years. <B>In the war of 1812 Washington DC was occupied and burned, NYC was occupied and our ports blockaded. While we were far better off than in the Revolutionary war 1812 was a conflict that could've ended up in us not existing as an independent country anymore. Only outside of wild paranoid ravings would anyone consider Al Qaeda having that capability.</b> I fear the economic ramificatons of ongoing war efforts and of successful terrorist strikes more than I do 19th century blockades of sailing ships. In case you haven't noticed we survived that trouble quite well. Are you as confident of this current war on terrorism-- if we don't prevail against this "petty" enemy al Qaeda? <B>During the Civil War several major US cities were destroyed, albeit by another part of the US, NYC was wracked by severe riots that might've killed thousands and its not like the US economy was humming along as the industrial north's resources were tied up in war and the agricultural resources of the mostly agricultural South were blockaded by the North. In both North and South mandated rationing and scarcity were the norm.</b> When the US fights the US the US wins automatically. Can you say that about this Muslim fatwa? <B>Under FDR not only was there one of the worst depressions in US history, there actually was one in the late 19th C. that was about as bad but not as long, the US faced a situation of near complete collapse of our economy, there were riots and tensions in much of the country, breakdowns in law and order and vast displacements of the population. There were legitimate fears that the US would either become a fascist dictatorship or else there would be a communist revolution. On top of that the 1930's were hit by a major environmental catastrophe, ever heard of the Dust Bowl and wonder why Oklahoma is so brown, that wiped out vast sectors of our most fertile farmland. All of this before WWII.</b> As I said earlier, the magnitude of FDR challenges is debatable. My real point is to challenge the underestimation of President Bush's challenges. His enemies portray him as a dolt who just screwed up an easy ride. <B>9/11 was bad and is a truly historical tragedy but that was 20 hijackers taking advantage of the weakness of our security. It wasn't an enemy that was one of the most advanced and industrialized countries of the time launching an air armada of thousands of fighter planes.</b> Over Europe of course. <b>Further Al Qaeda doesn't have one of the strongest navies in the world that could actually land an invasion force. At the time of Pearl Harbor Imperial Japan did and if you to visit Golden Gate National Park you will get a sense of how much of a threat Japan was when you see all of the concrete pillboxes doting the cliffs pointing out at the Pacific. On the European side Al Qaeda hasn't defeated and occupied some of our closest allies or boxed in England or devestated all of Europe or much of Asia. 9/11 will leave a lasting legacy but its nothing compared to what WWII did.</b> Fine. That's your opinion. Are you Nostrodamus? <B>Finally since you've brought this up a few times the economic boom brought on by WWII is essentially an artificial boom not created by the market but driven by a massive influx of government spending. Trade was only one way interms of the US sending war material to other countries. At home it wasn't like people were buying cadillacs and luxury homes since rationing and scarcity was the order of the day.</b> But the stage was set for US economic world superemecy. (Gotta go) <B>Uh you ever go to the beach at GALVESTON? You ever wonder why you see first floor windows half in the ground on some of those old houses? In case you forgot your Texas history there was this little storm that flooded the whole city and killed more than 6,000 people. At the time Galveston was one of the major cities of the US and rivaled NO as the preeminent city on the Gulf Coast. If not for that hurricane Houston would probably be a burb of Galveston now.</b> 45 miles south of me is Asheboro, NC-- nice zoo! <B>In 1878 an outbreak of yellow fever killed 5,000 in Memphis and infected 80% of the population that didn't flee. The city was so depopulated that the State of TN at the time revoked its charter as an independent government. It was flooded but amount of people killed put it close to the worst natural disaster in US history, which looks like it will keep its title since the number of deaths in NO isn't as bad as thought, the Galveston hurricane. And yes it repopulated now but at the time this was as bad if not worse than what's happening to NO now.</b> Did I miss something or is all of Memphis still standing? It's not all about death tolls. <B>Once again you need to seriously study US history. In 1906 almost all of SF was levelled by an earthquake and possibly up to 3,000 people died in the earthquake and fire that followed. This is still officially considered the second worst natural disaster in US history.</b> How many decades was SF out of the loop? <B>Things might seem bad now but not compared to the challenges facing previous generations. If you want a sense of how things compare with now just ask anyone who went through the great depression and WWII and see how it compares with what we're going through now.</b> It's not right now that I'm concerned about it's the future. My argument is about the challenges that Prez Bush faces not any 2005 snapshots of well-being.
The NBER peported that the economy did not hit recession until well into Mr Bushs first term. And that it actually was still increasing his first few months in office, all though very slightly.
doesn't deficit have something to do with tough economic issues? are you saying the tough economic issues are mainly caused by enron, dot com, and 911? iraq war and tax cuts had nothing to do with tough economic issues?
All I'm saying is that I never attached a growing deficit to economic woes that Bush faced when he entered office and during the early parts of his presidency. You did that. A growing deficit is something that he helped to create.
MYTH**** Bush took over at the start of the recession (But it was the Dotcoms of Clintons era that did it!) Truth****Bush was well into his term, as the economy was still GROWING. On November 26, 2001, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the nonpartisan and nonprofit organization that dates the business cylce for the United States, decided that the longest expansion in U.S. history, had come to and end in March 2001. The U.S. is now in a recession. This dating decision by the NBER is unusual in a sense that at the beginning of the recession, the ECONOMY WAS STILL GROWING, albeit at a very slow rate. http://policy.house.gov/assets/es-currenteconomicresession.pdf In other words. Bush took biggest surplus ever, and turned it into the biggest deficit ever. How you can argue with the GOVT agency that has been dating economic cycles for decades is a matter of some Shawn Hannity type spin. PSSST, oh and even though the Right likes to say well Tax cuts, have helped the economy...though the Jobless rate has stabilized, (I can argue very easily as to how) the number of people without health insurance and now living under the Official Poverty level has grown exponentionally. Easy to do the math. Tax cuts for the wealthy, overspending by our gov't. Rising Standard of living costs due to the two above = a poorer america.
Look up; you'll find the sky to be blue. Bush didn't spend any of the money but much of the deficit is due to his direction.
So Bush was in office for 2 months when the expansion ended? The article says that industrial production started falling by 9/2000. I haven't read carefully through much of this - but the beginning states quite clearly that the recession was caused by a decline in business investment - in particular "information processing equipment and software have been particularly hard hit." It says that the 1991-2001 expansions had a substantial investment component. It goes on to mention that the US had "redundant capital, especially in computer equipment and software." I worked at a few dot-coms during that time and had many friends in the same industry. It is pretty easy to see that the expansion was largely funded by VC money and that a lot of $$ did flow into technological capital investment. When people started realizing the fallacy of the dot-com business model and started laying people off and stopped ordering new Dells and Solaris servers - tech manufacturers laid off production people because they had to sell off big inventories, etc., - the bubble was bursting. I don't think any one President has the power to cause such a phenomenom. I suppose Greenspan may have been at fault for raising interest rates but he did so when Clinton was in office and its non-political point anyways. Because of the dot-com expansion (or bubble), government expenditures increased and did not decrease when the recession kicked in. Of course the recession would cause tax revenue to plummet. That always happens. IMO - Bush should only get minimal credit (if any) for turning the economy around with his tax-cuts. The recovery would have happened anyway as excess inventories started shrinking. Conversely - his tax-cuts did decrease revenues but the deficit would have ballooned anyways. It is fair, however, for true conservatives to bash Bush for not reigning in non-military spending and for anti-war people to claim that the Iraqi war is funded by credit or debt. Likewise - Clinton does not deserve any credit or blame for causing the bio-tech/Internet boom/bubble. At the very least - he did preside over an expansion and that does count for something. I never bought into the 9-11 causing a recession argument but I'm pretty stupid sometimes.
Well most of the major bust Dot-Coms were gone by 2000. Mind you not all. The report in all that it is saying, is being pretty adept at stating that no matter what you or anyone wants to credit anyone with. The economy was still Growing well into Bush's term. So its not like even with the Dot Com busts, and everything else the report is stating, the economy was stale much less in a period of recession.
what are you trying to say? Bush did not eat the cake but it disappeared dues to his hunger? so the deficit and economic troubles america is facing rightv now are his fault..
That's not what the report says though. Investment in business capital started decreasing in September 2000. And it was the steep drop-off in investment that triggered the recession. Greenspan's ill-timed interest rate hikes exacerbated the situation. Doesn't the report imply that the expansion ended in March 2001? You quoted that yourself in you post. There is nothing GW could have possibly done to prevent the recession from happening. If you want to blame GW for the recession no matter what then go ahead. Most serious economists don't view the world in such stark political contrasts. No - I am not a NEOCON and I don't credit GW's tax cuts for starting the recovery. As I mentioned before - it probably had , at best, a minimal effect.
Hey Sishir - no love for Atlanta? Not only did it get burned to the ground...it got burned down twice. Also in your Clinton list you forgot the Rodney King riots and the race relations issues stemming from that. I think the 60's still has to be the most trying decade in recent times. All of the assasinations, the war, civil rights, Cold War...nothing to sneeze at.
We live in a different world than we lived 10 years ago. And we live in a much different world we lived in 75 years ago. We are a people of instant demands and instant results. We also are a group of pessemisic people who thrive off of instant communication, even if its not true or twisted. Personally, I think Clinton did a pretty good job. IMO, I think he had a much easier term than Bush... but that was due to how each president handled the issue. Clinton chose to pusyfoot around and sing Hakuna Matata trying to get everyone to get along. Granted it made his term easier and he had a whole lot less enemies, someone had to come in and lay the strong arm down. While Bush on the other hand has done the complete opposite. I was happy with his first term, but his second term he needed to improve on his foreign polices. It seems as if hes pissing off more people and not bring closure to many issues. While my "approval" opinion might not fall under the 27%, I will still back him up. I guess the real question is whether or not Kerry could have done a better job?
Wow. The American people are finally beginning to figure George W. Bush out. An excerpt from the New York Times: The poll suggested the cumulative effects of months of bad news from the continuing insurgency in Iraq. Exactly 50 percent of Americans approve of Mr. Bush's handling of terrorism, for example, and while that figure is the single worst ranking since the question was first asked four years ago, it is only slightly worse than it was early this summer. But that is 11 points worse than it was in February, just after the first successful round of elections in Iraq. The data also suggest that the residual support that has steadily buoyed Mr. Bush in the four years since the Sept. 11 attacks may have reached its limit, for now. Fifty-three percent of Americans still say he has strong qualities of leadership, down 9 percentage points since he was re-elected and essentially equal to his all-time previous low in the summer of 2001, when his presidency seemed becalmed before the attacks. At the same time, 45 percent of Americans now say Mr. Bush does not have strong leadership qualities, six percentage points more than last fall, and the highest percentage since the Times/CBS poll first asked the question during Mr. Bush's initial campaign in 1999. Those general impressions now extend across the board in reviews of Mr. Bush's handling of particular issues. Thirty-eight percent of Americans approve of his handling of foreign policy; 35 percent of his handling of the economy; and 36 percent of his handling of the situation in Iraq. All those are at or roughly equal to his all-time lows - and below his all-time highs by double digits. Some of the pessimism seemed clearly fueled by higher gasoline prices. Nearly two-thirds of those polled said they had cut back on household spending as a result of higher prices, and 8 in 10 said the administration had no plan for keeping prices down, though more than 6 in 10 said the price of gas is something a president can do a lot about. A majority of the public is willing to pay more in taxes to assist hurricane victims with job training and housing; about 4 in 10 said they would be willing to pay as much as $200 a year more to help out with the storm's aftermath. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/p...fe94181d5b9&hp&ex=1126843200&partner=homepage I'm willing to pay more taxes to fund the relief and reconstruction of this national disaster that struck the Gulf Coast. And to pay for a war in Iraq that I think was a mistake, and to pay for one I strongly support in Afghanistan, and to bring down the incredible budget deficit building up before Katrina, and to insure that Federally mandated programs get funds, not lip service. To insure that badly needed services for those less well off than most of us are restored and/or increased, instead of being slashed and given to the states to pay for, the vast majority of which cannot run a budget deficit. I'm willing to roll back much of the Bush yearly tax cut giveaways, although we earn enough that we benefit from many of them. I'm more than willing to pay for veterans benefits and decent living conditions for the families of our fighting men and women, and higher pay, because they deserve it. Anyone else? Bush wants to have his cake and share it with his friends, with no price being paid for the huge national efforts being made, right now, on several fronts, and the national debt doubling, at least, during Bush's 2 terms in office. What hubris to keep these hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, mostly for the wealthy and big business, during multiple wars, national disasters of the scale of Katrina, and what was already an incredible increase in the national debt! How can it be justified? Because it's "good" for the economy?? Rubbish. How anyone can call Bush a leader is beyond me. The man is lost in an American forest of almost 300 million trees, and he cannot see. The middle class is squeezed and squeezed, over 45 million Americans, men, women and children, have no health insurance, and poverty has been increasing every year for the last several years. Where is the leadership from this man? Where is the call for sacrifice from all Americans? When is everyone going to wake up? Perhaps they are waking up now. Keep D&D Civil!!
I'm saying that Bush has no authoritarian power. There are many who are complcit. He does not make the law or mandate congressional spending.
