I hate your President.

[Typhoid]

3) Security: The fact is there haven't been any attacks since 9/11 and President Bush's policies in this area have helped lead to the thwarting of at least 2 documented attack plans by our enemies. There may have been even more. If you don't believe that number, fine, check for yourselves.

There also weren't large-scale terror attacks prior to 9/11.


Your point for number 3 reminds of of that "This rock keeps tigers away" 'theory', despite the fact the rock may be situated in Ohio.

4) The Economy: Regardless of his questionable spending policies the economy is booming, and yes it is booming, and unemployment is lower than it was under Clinton and tax revenues are increasing along with the economy. Yes, our debt is increasing, but spending is a separate issue and one that I dislike him for.

Thats odd, I just searched the internet, and found an article, released today saying the American Economy is cooling.

Also:

According to the Council on International and Public
Affairs (CIPA), the real U.S. rate of unemployment, if
properly calculated, would be 11.4 per cent - more than
double the official rate. The CIPA listed seven major
changes in the definitions of "employed" and "unemployed"
that were made in the U.S. methodology that have had the
combined effect of substantially reducing the number of
Americans officially listed as being jobless.

Among the categories dropped from the labour force
survey, in addition to the discouraged, were the under-16
group, those on strike or locked out and those who weren't
actively looking for work in the four weeks prior to the
survey. But by far the largest group omitted from the list
of jobless in the U.S. are the working-age men who are out
of work because they are in prison or on parole.

The 1.5 million American men in jail and the 8.1 million
on parole make up nearly 10 per cent of that country's male
workforce. By not including them in its labour force survey,
the U.S. is able to reduce its official unemployment rate by
more than five per cent.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

There also weren't large-scale terror attacks prior to 9/11

Well, actually the World Trade Center was bombed back in the early 90's, it just failed to bring the building down. Of course we just ignored it prior to Bush being in the white house. Bush is the first president to take terrorism seriously, and with good reason.

Your point for number 3 reminds of of that "This rock keeps tigers away" 'theory', despite the fact the rock may be situated in Ohio.

I never said Bush was sitting on the border himself keeping attacks at bay, I said his POLICIES have kept us safe. Policies, including open intelligence with key allies such as Great Britain. You know, kind of like the coordinated stoppage of the latest attack that was planned for last week.

Its alwaus oing to be difficult to prove that any governments policies stop terror attacks for the reason that its hard to prove something on the LACK of something. Me? We've been attack free since 9/11 , with the two PROVEN protective stoppages I mentioned before that you ignored, and thats proof enough for me.

Thats odd, I just searched the internet, and found an article, released today saying the American Economy is cooling.

1) Cooling is one thing, and is relative to how well it was going before, saying its bad is another.

2) Please provide a source for that unemployment number, as it is pretty provacative and goes against every number I've seen. Also, I would need to see the data of the TIME that these criteria were changed, if its accurate to begn with, to see if Bush has been working with skewed numbers or if every multiple presidencies have.

Honestly? This number seems outrageous to me and I would have to see it to believe it. It would equal the unemployment rate of France and you would think we would share the same social strife that they are experiencing right now if that was the case.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

2) Please provide a source for that unemployment number, as it is pretty provacative and goes against every number I've seen. Also, I would need to see the data of the TIME that these criteria were changed, if its accurate to begn with, to see if Bush has been working with skewed numbers or if every multiple presidencies have.

I forget what I typed in the google search to get it now, so dont beleive me, and feel free to think I stuck a random number into an article. But it makes sense. There is a very good chance, that in the unemployment rate, the people in prison are not counted, because that would greatly raise the rate.

[Bond]

Here's your source: http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/carryon/dcharbon/forum/usa.htm

[Professor S]

Typhoid, I was never claiming you invented the article or numbers, instead I wanted to see how valid the source was, and it turns out with good reason. Here is another quote from that article, which I found to be HILARIOUS

Among the categories dropped from the labour force
survey, in addition to the discouraged, were the under-16
group, those on strike or locked out and those who weren't
actively looking for work in the four weeks prior to the
survey. But by far the largest group omitted from the list
of jobless in the U.S. are the working-age men who are out
of work because they are in prison or on parole.

So we're not including those not looking for work (a.k.a. stay at home parents, homeless who don't want to work, and a few others), kids in school under 16, the "discouraged" (whatever the hell that means), PRISONERS and most likely those on disability?

GOOD. Now we can use a REAL unemployment number, meaning those that want and need work, instead of using numbers that would only inflate the reality of the situation. As for part time workers... they are still EMPLOYED and it wouldn' make any sense to say that they aren't. BTW, from what I've seen the rest of the world usues the same standards that we do when calculating this numer, so if we are at 11+% France and Germany must be at about 16-17%

And Jason1, could you explain to me what you consider a booming economy to be? Our unemployment IS LOW (sorry Typhoid it is), our stock market is still doing well even if it has evened out lately, our GNP continues to rise and our revenues to the government continue to increase even though taxes were cut. How is that not a booming economy? Most of these standards were met under Clinton and that is viewed as the end all of economies even though it was build on a false basis (internet companies).

[Xantar]

2) Down with Kyoto Treaty: I know immediately you might see this as a big negative, but thats on first blush. The fact is this had almost nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with One World Politics, as was admitted by UN officials. China was never going to sign that treaty and for America to do so would have held the US under a severe disadvantage for the long term and would have damaged our economy considerably. There are better ways to be eco-friendly without hamstringing ourselves.

I have a question, and really I'm just curious because I think you do make a good point and it's not my intention to try to refute it. But my question is: what do we do about China? They are the world's second biggest polluter, and at the rate they're going, they'll surpass even the United States about 20 years from now. And they know that imposing environmental policies on themselves could cripple their long-term economic prospects. And it's not like anybody could threaten them with military or economic sanctions. No sane diplomat would suggest enforcing an embargo against China or anything. So what do we do about them?

3) Security: The fact is there haven't been any attacks since 9/11 and President Bush's policies in this area have helped lead to the thwarting of at least 2 documented attack plans by our enemies. There may have been even more. If you don't believe that number, fine, check for yourselves.

If you're including the liquid explosives plot from last week in your "2 documented attack plans by our enemies," I'm not sure we should give Bush all that much credit. The terrorists were all British citizens attempting to board planes in London. Also, the main intelligence source in thwarting the plot is known to be a British agent who infiltrated the terrorist ranks. A lot of praise has also been given to Pakistan for providing valuable intelligence to the British to help them confirm that an attack was in the planning stages.

It would have been a terrible attack, and it's great that the British were able to stop it. But I'm just not sure President Bush's policies were all that instrumental.

Originally Posted by Professor S

And Jason1, could you explain to me what you consider a booming economy to be? Our unemployment IS LOW (sorry Typhoid it is), our stock market is still doing well even if it has evened out lately, our GNP continues to rise and our revenues to the government continue to increase even though taxes were cut. How is that not a booming economy? Most of these standards were met under Clinton and that is viewed as the end all of economies even though it was build on a false basis (internet companies).

First of all, the fact that our GDP (or GNP, if you prefer to use that) continues to rise means nothing. It's almost always rising. And we've already been over the tax numbers. The very IRS numbers that you dug up several months ago show that tax revenue dropped drastically after Bush's tax cuts and are only just now approaching the levels of the later years of the Clinton administration.

Anyway, GNP is not the only measure of the economy. A look at the median income is also revealing. This is a decent table from the Census Bureau. It shows that from 1980 to 2000, the average increase in inflation adjusted median income for men was about $194.15 per year and $346.80 per year for women (the fact that women's income is rocketing up compared to men is pretty interesting, too, but that's another discussion). From 2001 to the end of 2004, inflation adjusted median income for men and women fell despite the fact that everybody got a tax cut. The last time median income fell was during the recession in the later years of the first Bush Administration. And the last time it happened before that was right before and during the recession of the early 1980s. Also, this PDF file shows that our poverty rate has been steadily climbing since 2001.

I'm not pointing this out just to because I'm liberal and I hate inequality. These numbers are also bad for the economy. Note that in the second link I provided, only a brief period in 2001 is declared as a recession. What these numbers are showing is that GDP has been growing all the rest of the time, but people haven't been growing richer along with the economy. You can understand intuitively how this is bad for us. The economy is literally driven by people's spending. When people have more money to spend, they buy more stuff which gives the people they buy from more money to spend which means they buy more stuff etc. When people have increasingly less money to spend, the opposite spiral takes effect. What's been happening recently is that our economy has been growing by squeezing more labor out of workers without matching wage increases to keep up. This is not sustainable in the long term. Eventually, either wages have to catch up to the growing GDP (inflation) or GDP growth has to slow down.

By the way, I tend to think that the boom years during the Clinton Administration are mostly attributable to the tight economic policies of the elder President Bush. Clinton was smart enough not to screw everything up, but it is the nature of our economy that the beneficial effects of our fiscal policies are not usually felt in full force until the next administration. I don't think the ultimate effect of George W. Bush's policies will not be known until 2008.

Also, what brought this thread on anyway? I don't like President Bush, but it's not like he suddenly became bad this month. Right now he's pretty much acting the way he always has, and there hasn't even been a major scandal lately.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

I have a question, and really I'm just curious because I think you do make a good point and it's not my intention to try to refute it. But my question is: what do we do about China? They are the world's second biggest polluter, and at the rate they're going, they'll surpass even the United States about 20 years from now. And they know that imposing environmental policies on themselves could cripple their long-term economic prospects. And it's not like anybody could threaten them with military or economic sanctions. No sane diplomat would suggest enforcing an embargo against China or anything. So what do we do about them?

When it comes to China, pollution is the least of my worries. China is in bed with too many of the wrong kinds of people, namely North Korea and Iran, with Iran being the perhaps the greatest threat to West right now. First we need to get China to be a GOOD friend of the West, and then we can worry about pollution.

Back to the point, we should use China's burgeoning capitalism against them. We (meaning the Western world) need to have the strength and cooperation to place trade embargos on China if need be. The US needs to have the strength the rip Wal-Mart, Google and other major western owned employers from the country. China now has a taste for capitalism, and if we deny them that foodstuff, they might just have to play ball. Notice I say might. Right now the world is as dangerous as it has ever been, and anything can happen, so I won't pretend to predict what China will do. As for Iran, I'm pretty sure I know what they want to do (its in their constitution) but thats a point for another thread and scares the BEJEEZUS out of me.

Well stated on the economy, Xantar, but yours isn't the only view (as relevant as it is). There are many factors that are decreasing the expendible cash flow that have nothing to do with company success and revenues and salaries, like the rise in gas prices and general wartime hesitance. And as for the income statistics, there are many that believe salaries inflated far too quickly with the economy in the 90's and helped greatly in the internet collapse of the early 00's. So the numbers that you quoted would be a false comparison if this were accurate. In this theory, the drop is more of a correction of salaries that never should have been as large as they were, rather than a reflection of the economy. In fact, the stability of this economy considering the rising gas prices and war-weariness is amazing, especially considering the economy has little to do with wartime supply production. You say tomater, I say tomoter.

I do think that as the war continues to go on, it will continue to effect the economy negatively, along with the rising gas prices (hopefully they are starting to level out). I doubt it would create a recession, though, barring some unforseen happenstance... like... you know... World War 3. (I'm kidding, but not really)