Bush Economy the worst since Herbert Hoover

[lex400sc]

For the 37th month in a row, America is continuing to see job loses with 93,000 jobs lost in manufacturing and 67,000 jobs lost in the service sector in the last month alone. The middle class is continuing to shrink and blacks are losing white-collar jobs at the fastest rate since the 1970's. And with this monumental failure in Bush economic policy, the President is pressing on for a permanent tax cut mirroring his 2003 plan, which adds and additional $1 trillion weight to what is already the largest federal deficit in American history. There is only one question that remains: where did the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax relief go to? Who is winning if not the working class? Could it possibly be the very richest segment of society who is benefitting? In other words, the favortism goes to those who are already best equipped to weather a down economy? There is no question about it! With this ugly shadow upon Bush's policy, the President has scheudled a national address on Sunday morning. Let's see what he has to say about the economic climate in regards to his sorry plan---if he'll even address the issues and claim responsibility (for the first time ever), or instead just highlight his few and far between term accomplishments.

And speaking of monumental failures, the Roadmap to Peace in Israel is yet another characteristic failure of Bush's. PM Abbas has resigned with his waning power, Sharon and Bush both refuse to deal with Arafat (although an Arafat-appointed official is okay to deal with), and Sharon is re-igniting violence in the region with weekly assasination attempts upon Hamas political leaders (not military, but political). The Iraq war is another series of broken promises and disappointments as well. We were assured that we were liberating a willing people, yet we see more American troops dying in the aftermath of war than in the actual combat. We were told we were fighting terrorism, when the truth is we brought terrorism, domestic violence, and militia groups into Iraq. We arrogantly cast out the incompotent UN weapons inspectors for failing to deliver us a reason to wage war, only to wage a war anyway and find after six months of occupation, governance, and policing that there are no signs of WMD. We entered under the banner of humanitarians to see that our only postwar plan was to manage oil wells while half a year later there is still a water quality and electricity crisis in Iraq. It's scary to imagine where a *second* term under George Bush would leave America and the world. I mean for godsakes, if the first term is all about approval ratings and the second term is about legacy and ideology, that would make the future look quite grim...

[BAWLEX94]

We arrogantly cast out the incompotent UN weapons inspectors for failing to deliver us a reason to wage war, only to wage a war anyway and find after six months of occupation, governance, and policing that there are no signs of WMD

The numerous contradictions and ironic decisions associated with the administration also never cease to amaze me. I recall Bush saying months ago, before the War in Iraq officially began, that if the U.N. could not pass a smaller time frame with which to invade Iraq, they would become "irrelevant". Seems as if the exact opposite is becoming true now, and Bush is having to swallow a bit of his pride, as well as a bit of his own BULL ******

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep2.html

PASSAGE FROM ARTICLE: In an effort to win broader international support for U.S. policies in Iraq, President Bush decided yesterday to seek U.N. Security Council approval of a resolution granting the world body greater control over multinational peacekeeping forces and a role in forming a new Iraqi government, administration officials said.

The decision marks a major shift for Bush after months in which the administration had strongly resisted granting any significant military or political authority to the United Nations. It reflects a recognition within the administration that a stronger U.N. mandate is essential to winning greater foreign military and economic help in stabilizing Iraq.

The president's decision came in the face of mounting congressional calls for allowing the United Nations to play a greater role, and marked an opening gambit in what should prove to be prolonged and difficult negotiations with Security Council members in the run-up to an address by Bush to the opening of the U.N. General Assembly later this month. The speech will come one year after the president went to the world body to outline his case for war against Iraq.

[lex400sc]

I recall many people in the Iraq forums saying the war wasn't unilateral and that we had dozens and dozens of other nations backing us. Funny, where are all those nations now when we are asking for international support? Oh wait, we already cut the check for buying their white paper pre-war support. Contract fullfilled, have a nice day! And the few nations willing to jump into Iraq now are holding back, only because Bush, the international bully is insisting that other nations forfeit command of their own armies in Iraq and have no administrative powers there. Great way to ask for help when your back is in a corner!....

[BAWLEX94]

It also sounds to me as if Colin Powell might be one of the last remaining voices of reason and rationality in the Bush Administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html

PASSAGE FROM ARTICLE:


On Tuesday, President Bush's first day back in the West Wing after a month at his ranch, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell walked into the Oval Office to present something close to a fait accompli.

In what was billed as a routine session, Powell told Bush that they had to go to the United Nations with a resolution seeking a U.N.-sanctioned military force in Iraq -- something the administration had resisted for nearly five months. Powell, whose department had long favored such an action, informed the commander in chief that the military brass supported the State Department's position despite resistance by the Pentagon's civilian leadership. Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, whose office had been slow to embrace the U.N. resolution, quickly agreed, according to administration officials who described the episode.

sometimes i truly believe that Powell is fully aware of the fact that the Bush Administration is nothing more than a fly by night circus.

[2Lexus430s]

Who failed America?

Clinton Warned on Bin Laden Hijack-Kamikaze Plot

If you don't recall seeing the blaring post-Sept. 11 headline "Clinton Warned on Bin Laden Hijack-Kamikaze Plot," it's not because your memory is failing.

In fact, the big media mostly ignored the story - in marked contrast to today's wall-to-wall coverage of news that President Bush received a pre-Sept. 11 CIA briefing on a possible bin Laden hijack plot.

And while the warning transmitted to Bush gave no inkling that bin Laden planned to transform U.S. airliners into flying bombs and slam them into American office buildings, Clinton administration intelligence officials were in fact in possession of detailed information on an al Qaeda conspiracy to hijack several U.S. airliners - including a plan to crash one of the planes into the Pentagon or CIA.

It was called "Operation Bojinka," a 1995 plot hatched by an al Qaeda cell in the Philippines with an eye toward blowing up 12 American airliners. Some would be booby-trapped with bombs, like Pan Am 103, others hijacked like the four U.S. jets commandeered on 9-11 and crashed into buildings.

Though the mainstream press never demonstrated much enthusiasm for the story, Accuracy in Media's Reed Irvine detailed what the Clinton administration knew - and when it knew it - for NewsMax.com last October.

Citing a Sept. 13 Agence France-Presse report, Irvine noted that Philippine Police Chief Superintendent Avelino Razon had uncovered the plot to "plant bombs in U.S. airliners and hijack others to crash them into buildings like the CIA headquarters."

"Razon said [the plot] was found on the computer of Ramzi Yousef, the organizer of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center," Irvine reported. "He had fled to Pakistan, but his laptop was found in the apartment he shared with his accomplice, Abdul Hakim Murad. Razon said both were agents of Osama bin Laden."

A later Agence France-Press report noted:

"Among targets mentioned [in Yousef's computer files] was the World Trade Center in New York ... CIA offices in Virginia and the Sears Tower in Chicago."

Picking up where Irvine left off, the Washington Post quoted a Filipino investigator who said that as he watched the attack on the World Trade Center on television, he exclaimed in horror, "It's Bojinka. We told the Americans everything about Bojinka. Why didn't they pay attention?"

Razon told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that after the the Philippine intelligence report was compiled in 1995, it was passed on to the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Joint Task Force on Terrorism.

But, he complained, "It was not given credibility. Otherwise, it could have prevented the destruction of the World Trade Center."

The Clinton FBI was in full possession of all the frightening facts on Bojinka, but did nothing. Instead, as Reed Irvine revealed, the bureau assured Congress that everything was under control.

"In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on terrorism in February 1998, 'Bojinka' - which means 'big bang' - was described by Dale L. Watson, chief of the International Terrorism Operations Section of the FBI, only as a plot to blow up 'numerous U.S. air carriers.'

"He said that the FBI had identified 'a significant and growing organizational presence' of foreign terrorists in the United States. He swore the bureau had them under control."

The Clinton FBI counterintelligence chief told the Senate that as a result of the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the FBI had developed an 'enhanced capability' to track terrorist activities.

Is it likely that U.S. intelligence possessed this much information on al-Qaeda plans to slam planes into U.S. buildings - and didn't tell President Clinton?

Actually it is, if you believe the account of his former CIA Director James Woolsey, who said Clinton never bothered to meet with him during his stint as the nation's intelligence chief.

What about other administration officials, like Attorney General Janet Reno, who certainly should have known about Bojinka?

There Clinton may also have an alibi.

During all of 1998 - the same year FBI counterintelligence briefed Congress on the al-Qaeda hijack plot - Clinton met with his Cabinet exactly twice: once in January to lie to them about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and again in August to come clean about the affair.

Learn more about why U.S intelligence missed the 9-11 clues during the Clinton years. Get your copy of NewsMax.com's "Off the Record" interview with FBI whistleblower Gary Aldrich.

[BAWLEX94]

riveting article and all, but what does it have to do with Bush's current economic plans. So what if Clinton was "SOLEY REPSONSIBLE" for 9/11. You can find articles that argue for that all over the internet, as well as articles that argue the exact opposite. I thought this thread was about Bush's failed attempts at economic revival, as well as his failed attempts at reaching his goals for post war Iraq. Is Clinton responsible for Bush's less than mediocre policies when it comes to economic growth and stimulation? Is Clinton also repsonsible for President Bush's decision to wage a unilateral war on a soverign nation? And is Clinton responsible for the failed attempts at rebuilding Iraq and setting up new government?

[2Lexus430s]

If you think Clinton did such a great job with the economy, read this

<WASHINGTON POST>June 2000 President Clinton says that things are good for America. The stock market is climbing, jobs are plentiful, inflation has been reigned in and mortgages are affordable. This sounds good, But, Clinton thinks there are some things that are wrong with this picture. What he fears most is that the American people will figure out what it is between now and the November election.

Clinton's economics advisors realize that The stock market is overvalued and could stumble, and inflation is threatening to cause mortgage rates to suddenly rise sharply before the election.

Clinton's re-election prospects are dimming as problems depress the American middle-class. Corporate layoffs and stagnant wages cause many taxpayers to challenge Clinton's version of the present American economy.

The reason behind the slower than average expansion of the American economy is the unprecedented Clinton tax hike of $241 billion that has cost job growth and economic output. Bob Dole said "This year, `It's the economy, stupid' takes on a whole new meaning," Dole said in a recent speech, referring to Clinton's unofficial 1992 campaign slogan. "Clinton is hoping the rest of us are stupid so we won't notice what a mess he's made of the economy."

For the past five years, large pluralities of Americans have been reporting that they believe the nation is on the wrong track in surveys conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide of McLean, Va.

It happened again in a Wirthlin public poll conducted June 20-23: Only 29 percent of those surveyed said America was headed in the right direction, compared with 64 percent who felt otherwise.

"People are frustrated," said Wirthlin Vice President Bruce Blakeman. "People are frightened by what is happening to the economy as it affects them personally."

Some 62 percent of those surveyed in a Money Magazine/ABC News poll released last week gave the Clinton economy poor marks. Less than three in 10 respondents say they are better off than when Clinton office in January.

The Clinton income tax increase in 1993 that included a 4-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax increase is beginning to be understood as a big hit on middle and lower income voters.

The Clinton 1993 tax increase is costing the economy some $208 billion in economic output and has been the single most significant reason for reducing the new jobs by 1.2 million. The Heritage Foundation said the tax hike cost the average American family $2,600 in higher taxes and lower earnings.

Rising mortgage rates come as inflation is starting to creep upward and wipe other gains in the economy. John E. Silvia, an economist for Zurich Kemper Investments in Chicago, said "If inflation keeps on rising ... in July or August you could have a Fed tightening policy that might shake consumer confidence."

Economics Institute Chief Economist. Howard Hobbs said Saturday "If the bad news does comes before the November election voters will dump the Clinton administration.However, Clinton will attempt to delay the reporting of economic data at the last-minute until after the election."

[Ebanks]

Originally posted by lex400sc
For the 37th month in a row,

Here is the key to your post. This points out that this started with Clinton, not Bush... Bush hasn't even been in office for 37 months.

-Ethan

[2Lexus430s]

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
riveting article and all, but what does it have to do with Bush's current economic plans. So what if Clinton was "SOLEY REPSONSIBLE" for 9/11. You can find articles that argue for that all over the internet, as well as articles that argue the exact opposite. I thought this thread was about Bush's failed attempts at economic revival, as well as his failed attempts at reaching his goals for post war Iraq. Is Clinton responsible for Bush's less than mediocre policies when it comes to economic growth and stimulation? Is Clinton also repsonsible for President Bush's decision to wage a unilateral war on a soverign nation? And is Clinton responsible for the failed attempts at rebuilding Iraq and setting up new government?

First off, because of 9-11 Airlines have laid off over 40,000 employees. Most of them are in Bankruptsy and many airline support corporations (such as Boeing, GE, and Lockheed Martin) have laid off Thousands because of the slumpish airlines. Not only that, Enron, Worldcom, and several other large corporations laid off thousands because of corporate scandles. Its not the President, so stop blameing it all on him.


How long has is been since the war was over??? maybe a few months. What do you people expect..

"I think he should have repaired Iraq overnight" ---NO, impossible

[2Lexus430s]

Originally posted by Ebanks
Here is the key to your post. This points out that this started with Clinton, not Bush... Bush hasn't even been in office for 37 months.

-Ethan

Amen Brotha

[bitkahuna]

The world is a complex place. Looking for blame or praise for either 'side' is easy.

As far as the economy goes, there's many positive indicators too. While 6.1% unemployment seems bad, it's twice that in most other industrialized nations. How about inflation? How about none. Interest rates? All time lows. This compared to say, the wonderful Carter administration, which had double digits for all three I believe. Today's economy is hardly worse than that.

With globalization, immigration patterns, and technology it's hard to compare the current economy to the past.

As far as Iraq goes, it's way too early to figure out how this will play out. The U.N. *IS* irrelevant right now, the French and German government cling on to it so they can think they're important when they are irrelevant too. They are not powerful nations, but they still think they are. They resent the power of the U.S. and want to do anything possible to limit its power.

[2Lexus430s]

Originally posted by bitkahuna
The world is a complex place. Looking for blame or praise for either 'side' is easy.

As far as the economy goes, there's many positive indicators too. While 6.1% unemployment seems bad, it's twice that in most other industrialized nations. How about inflation? How about none. Interest rates? All time lows. This compared to say, the wonderful Carter administration, which had double digits for all three I believe. Today's economy is hardly worse than that.

With globalization, immigration patterns, and technology it's hard to compare the current economy to the past.

As far as Iraq goes, it's way too early to figure out how this will play out. The U.N. *IS* irrelevant right now, the French and German government cling on to it so they can think they're important when they are irrelevant too. They are not powerful nations, but they still think they are. They resent the power of the U.S. and want to do anything possible to limit its power.

I Completely Agree

[BAWLEX94]

The U.N. *IS* irrelevant right now,

I must be missing something, because if the U.N. is currently irrelevant as you and Mr. Bush have both stated, then why is the administration currently seeking their help? Why seek the help of an organization that you view as irrelevant.

[J.P.]

"As far as the economy goes, there's many positive indicators too. While 6.1% unemployment seems bad, it's twice that in most other industrialized nations. How about inflation? How about none. Interest rates? All time lows. This compared to say, the wonderful Carter administration, which had double digits for all three I believe. Today's economy is hardly worse than that."


I think it is often easy to read about the past and make judgments. If you had to live in those times, no comparison would be made to today's economies.

After listening to stories from my father about 13% mortgage rates and NO jobs anywhere, how bad are we really today? The job market is weak, but over all this country isn't doing as bad as the media or comparisons say.

[bitkahuna]

My first mortgage was 12.25%. My first car loan was 13%. Quit *****ing.