Neocon Coup at the Department d'État

So let me get this straight:

George W. Bush's economic policies are responsible for the recent "upturn" in the economy that you refer to, yet they are not responsible for the loss of millions of jobs since he took office, right?

Presidents have little to do with the economy, however, I would argue that the largest deficit in this nation's history your buddy has created isn't helping to instill consumer confidence nor create a whole hell of alot of jobs.

Trickle-down economics simply does not work the way those who espouse it would like it to work. George I was 100% spot-on when he called it "voodoo economics" during the 1980 Presidential campaign. The only "trickling down" that occurs is when the rich piss on the heads of those who fall below them on the greed ladder.

So, fire away with your defense of the trickle-down, T_J. Everyone knows where you stand, yet nobody is listening to you. If we are headed towards a recovery, it is another jobless recovery, just like during the first Bush administration, and we all know how the 1992 Presidential election turned out, don't we?

The bottom line is this: When people vote for a Presidential candidate, they often ask themselves if they are better off than they were four years ago. And, 9 times out of 10, they ask this question of themselves in regards to their economic position. In reality, contrary to your economic treatise, the only people in this country that are better off than they were four years ago are those at the top of the tax bracket, not your average middle-class Joe.

 

Let's see, Jorge.

Downturns in the economy tend to happen periodically. How the government reacts in terms of taxation and spending shortens or prolongs these downturns.

Giving tax breaks to the rich who already spend just about all they want to doesn't help prime the pump when you are having a downturn in the business cycle. Giving tax breaks to the poor who by definition spend every cent they get their hands on helps turn around the economy in a downturn. Cooking the books to deny this doesn't help the downturn.

When you have oversupply and a lot of people out of work as in a downturn, business owners don't expand production and rehire people till the demand picks up-- even if you rebate some tax money to them.

Another favorite Republican strategy for shifting money from the working poor and middle class is to bust unions to lower wages. This is very efective in a downturn when jobs are scarce and this aggravates demand problems. As we have seen recently a new plan to eliminate overtime pay would do the same thing. Again putting less money in the pockets of those whose spending is needed to spur demand in a downturn..

Spending by consumers or government can create jobs. Certain types of government spending create more jobs than others. Armament spending on automated production lines is not very labor intensive. Spending on social need such as Headstart and daycare etc. is. the GOP typically fight to limit this type of spending.

Another popular strategy that we have see in TX by the GOP is to take surpluses accrued in good times and to rebate them disproportionately to the wealthier rather than put the surplus in a rainy day fund. Thus when the downturn comes you have to reduce government spending, which aggravates the downturn further and destroys the possible countercyclical effect of a rain day fund.

Another GOP policy destroying countercyclical possibilities is that they usually try to resist extending unemployment benefits which can sustain spending during a downturn.

In short by remaining fixated on typicl GOP goals, shifting of the tax burden to the less wealthy,opposing non armament government spending, opposing higher wages, unemployment, rainy day funds, and recently even higher combat wages and benefits for our troops the GOP aggravate downturns.

 

George W. Bush's economic policies are responsible for the recent "upturn" in the economy that you refer to, yet they are not responsible for the loss of millions of jobs since he took office, right?

Missed that one Rocketman, while I was posting.

 

All I know is that if they force out Powell (and he might just want out), then we are in deep, deep, deep doo-doo (if Wolfowitz or Rice is boosted up).

Boost up Wolf or Rice, and the defense contractors and oil companies will further tighten their grip on the administration...as if that were possible.

Then you'd move up another neo-conservative hawk like John Bolton to, say, Rice's old job. Ugh.

We're already fattening Iran for the kill. I'm no Powell worshipper, but at least he is the occasional voice of reason (hence the attempts to get him out of town).

 

)

I read columns from both sides. I listen to Rush on occasion in the car. (I would listen to a liberal radio talking head sometimes as well, but so far there aren't any good ones)

I do a lot of things like that. I may lean to a large degree on the liberal side of things... much more than a large degree, depending on the issue, but I like to find out what the other side is thinking. It makes for a more informed data base to work with.

People who just follow knee-jerk politics, from either side, get boring pretty fast. MadMax, you don't fall into that catagory. (not usually )

Powell is not perfect, but the thought of any of the others mentioned running State scares the hell out of me.

 

thanks.

 

Sorry for helping derail the thread into economy-land.

 

Should I have better qualified "try"?

 

Thanks MC Mark. I need all the "get out of jail free" cards I can get!

 

mcmark:

Ok, now that's funny.

I don't care what political stripe you are...

 

mc mark:

Is that a true story? If so, it's not funny at all.

Did you get it from CNN or one of the networks? If so, it's probably a liberal lie. But if you got it from, say, johnheath or Jorgie_Porgie it's definitely true and somebody should be looking for that kid.

 

No need.

The kid is already at Gitmo.

You'll never see him again.